infrastructure and stakeholder analyses report 21 june 2013 final... · transparent manner, by...
TRANSCRIPT
Pre-Feasibility Assessment of a Water Fund for the Ensenada Region Infrastructure and Stakeholder Analyses
Josué Medellín-Azuara, Leopoldo Mendoza-Espinosa, Chantelise Pells, and Jay R. Lund
June 2013
Suggested Citation: Medellin-Azuara, J., Mendoza-Espinosa, L.G. Pells, C. M. and J.R. Lund (2013). Pre-Feasibility Assessment of a Water Fund for the Ensenada Region: Infrastructure and Stakeholder Analyses. A Report for The Nature Conservancy. Prepared by the Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis.
i Final Report
Executive Summary The Ensenada Region in Baja California (Figure ES-1) provides ecosystem services such as habitat for native species, scenic beauty and headwaters to sustain fast-growing population and high-valued agriculture in its coastal valleys. This semi-arid region mostly supplied by groundwater also faces challenging water problems such as water supply reliability for future needs, aquifer overdraft accompanied in some cases by salinity intrusion, and institutional inefficiencies to manage water resources (Table ES-1).
Figure ES-1. Area of study in the Ensenada Region.
A Water Fund is a novel water management tool to economically compensate for environmental services. Water Funds attract capital contributions from the main water users in a region including water utilities, agricultural users, and other economic sectors, in an organized and transparent manner, by investing these resources and maximize return over investment. Activities compensated in a Water Fund include protection of water supply sources through land and water conservation in the areas that provide ecosystem services, water conservation and maintaining community initiatives. Problems that could be addressed by a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region include land and water use practices in the foothills to enhance aquifer recharge –provided that comprehensive hydrologic studies deem net gains in water recharge; artificial groundwater recharge with reclaimed water, foraging crops irrigation with recycled wastewater, and water conservation.
ii Final Report
A Water Fund in the Ensenada Region may result an attractive water management tool for government agencies, water utilities, urban and agricultural water users and non-governmental or conservation organizations. Improved water management and governance, higher local involvement, compensation for environmental services provision, and enhanced groundwater management supple are among the incentives for the various groups in the Ensenada Region. Costs of activities in a Water Fund for the Ensenada Region and the revenue generating tools require more detailed economic and financial analyses. Furthermore, estimation of net water supply gains from Water Fund activities through hydrological studies is in place. Table ES-1 Summary of preliminary Water Fund findings for the Ensenada Region.
Ensenada Region water problems The Ensenada Region faces the water challenges of a well-developed yet semi-arid area, where water supply must cope with population growth, high-value agriculture, and mid-size commercial and industrial activity. 1 Water supply reliability. Growing population increases pressure on regional water
resources. Regional water management plans at the federal, state and municipal level consider a fair range of alternatives including a desalination facility, reducing system losses, water conservation, wastewater reuse, and connection to the Tijuana-Colorado River aqueduct.
2 Aquifer overdraft. Current demands and over-allocation of water use rights pose a serious challenge to resource sustainability. Buyback of water use rights and regularization of users and aquifer management plans through COTAS are some strategies in place. Aquifer recharge with recycled wastewater and enhancing natural recharge through land and water management practices in the valley and mountains should be considered.
3 Saline intrusion. Saline intrusion in coastal aquifers impairs groundwater use and increases treatment costs. Increasing natural recharge in affected aquifers and implementing artificial recharge can prevent water quality degradation.
4 Institutional inefficiencies. Integrated regional water management planning and its implementation are in their early stages. Regional water management needs to more thoroughly address local concerns and gain financial self-sufficiency. Local involvement and governance are essential.
Problems a Water Fund could help with A Water Fund for the Ensenada Region cannot address all large water management problems and is not a substitute for current planning efforts. However, a Water Fund can serve as a venue for incremental steps towards a more organized and socially-equitable water management discussion with some incremental steps to address the region’s water problems. 1 Land and water use practices to enhance groundwater recharge. Improvement of
land and water use practices in the ejido and privately owned land particularly in the foothills might improve aquifer recharge. Activities might include reforestation with native species, enhance protected area and improved soils management to increase subsurface, surface flow and aquifer recharge. Research is needed to identify potential restoration sites, water recharge gains and losses, and costs.
2 Artificial aquifer recharge. Participation in aquifer reclaimed water recharge pilot programs. A Water Fund might help coordinate efforts between the water utilities, stakeholder and other agencies and interest groups. Water banking potential could be explored.
3 Irrigation of forage crops with reclaimed water. A Water Fund could help coordinate efforts for use of reclaimed water in irrigation. Some economic incentives for farmers
iii Final Report
and a revenue generating scheme to fund these projects could improve continuity and engagement of all involved parties.
4. Water conservation. Agriculture in the Ensenada Region is generally sophisticated with drip or other low water use irrigation system. Thus the potential of further conservation in agriculture is limited and might actually decrease aquifer recharge if it results in farmers increasing irrigated areas. Urban water conservation may have some areas of improvement by reducing system losses and total residential water use, the largest water user in the urban areas. Many infrastructural improvements are already taking place as part of municipal plans. However, a Water Fund may improve overall outreach efforts to reduce residential water use and help designing an appropriate scheme of incentives for conservation.
Likely investors and their motivation in a Water Fund CONAGUA A main provider for infrastructural development. Local
involvement from a Water Fund will likely improve regional water management in the Watershed Organizations.
CEA Water conservation and increased groundwater recharge from a Water Fund program may reduce operating costs and the need for a prompt connection to the Colorado River aqueduct.
CESPE Water conservation and increased groundwater recharge from a Water Fund program may reduce treatment costs, operating costs from a desalination facility.
Non-Governmental Organizations
Have a presence in the region and contribute with expertise in managing conservation programs.
International Cooperation
Serve as provider of funds in a well-established framework for preserving ecosystem services.
Agricultural water users Improve irrigation practices to sustain agricultural production in the region. Large agricultural water users may also be providers of funds to a Water Fund.
Urban water users Conserve water and slow the need for large infrastructure investments partially funded by increased water fees to augment water supply.
Land owners (ejido and private)
With a compensation scheme in place, improve water and land use practices, participate in conservation projects to increase net groundwater recharge.
Some conclusions arise from this pre-feasibility assessment.
1. The Ensenada Region provides ecosystem services including water resources that sustain population needs, agriculture and other economic activity. These ecosystem services should be protected as part of the current governmental plans and locally raised conservation initiatives without great conflict.
2. Water resources management in Mexico faces infrastructural, institutional and financial challenges. There is a need to coordinate planning and funding to embrace and financially sustain local initiatives.
3. Water issues in the Ensenada Region include aquifer overdraft, over allocation of water use concessions, saline intrusion and a poor institutional infrastructure to address these problems in organized manner. Hence the opportunities for a Water Fund to help are present.
4. Ecosystem services can coexist with current and future development in the Ensenada Region. Key areas to target with a Water Fund are protection of land practices and the
iv Final Report
basins that contribute headwaters and recharge to aquifers, water quality in the aquifers, and augmentation of water supply via water use efficiency, demand reduction, or sustainable water supply sources.
5. The stakeholder potential support, the legal infrastructure, and the economic context for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region exist.
6. Involvement of stakeholders and especially the CONAGUA through workgroups is fundamental and encouraged in the early states of the process.
7. More research is needed on how the stakeholder, legal and economic trio can be formalized in a Water Fund, in the areas if hydrologic modeling, economic and financial analyses, creation of work groups and drafting bottom up initiatives and objectives in a fund.
v Final Report
Table Contents
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Acronyms and Abbreviations [translation needed] ......................................................................... x Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2 Water Funds Overview ................................................................................................ 3
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 The Ensenada Region and its Ecosystem Services ....................................................... 3 2.3 Area of Influence ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Physical characteristics ................................................................................................................. 7 2.4 Water challenges in the Ensenada Region ................................................................... 19
2.4.1 Water Supply Reliability ............................................................................................................ 19 2.4.2 Aquifer Overdraft .......................................................................................................................... 20 2.4.3 Saline Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers ...................................................................................... 21 2.4.4 Institutional Inefficiencies ........................................................................................................ 21
Chapter 3 Ensenada Region Political and Legal Structure: Mexico’s water governance ......... 22 3.1 Legal framework ................................................................................................................... 22
3.1.1 Laws and tools for managing hydrological resources in Mexico .............................. 24 3.2 Water Management Tools .................................................................................................. 24 3.3 Federal Laws ........................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Federal Bylaws and Regulations ............................................................................................ 26 3.4 . State Laws and Regulations ............................................................................................. 26
3.4.1 Mexican Norms .............................................................................................................................. 27 3.5 . Integrated water resource management plans ........................................................ 27
3.5.1 Federal Management Plans ...................................................................................................... 27 3.6 . Institutional Stakeholders of Water Resource Management .............................. 30
3.6.1 Federal: Primary agencies—ad ministration, policy design and implementation 31 3.6.2 Water resource financing and planning agencies ........................................................... 32 3.6.3 Social, natural resource and environmental agencies ................................................... 32
3.7 Environmental programs and conservation tools .................................................... 34 3.8 . Legislative tools to conserve natural areas in Mexico ........................................... 34 3.9 Examples of conservation through economic incentives ....................................... 35
3.9.1 Payment for Hydrological Services (PSAH) program .................................................... 35 3.9.2 Programa de Cuencas y Ciudades (Cities and Watershed Program)....................... 37
3.10 Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................. 37 Chapter 4 Economic Context for Water Resource Management in the Study Area .................. 39
4.1 Introduction: Economic Background ............................................................................. 39 4.2 Legal context of water financing in Mexico ................................................................. 41 4.3 Water resources financing in Mexico ............................................................................ 42
4.3.1 Water Plans for the Baja California Peninsula River Basin ......................................... 44 4.3.2 Water programs in Mexico a non-exhaustive list ............................................................ 49 4.3.3 Water management and revenue generating tools ........................................................ 50
4.4 Largest water uses, volumes of water and associated costs .................................. 51
vi Final Report
4.5 Subsidies that may impede water conservation strategies ................................... 55 4.6 Indirect effects of a Water Fund on water pricing .................................................... 56 4.7 Areas of Opportunity for Water Management in the Ensenada Region ............ 56
4.7.1 Water stress .................................................................................................................................... 56 4.7.2 Water quality .................................................................................................................................. 57 4.7.3 Water Resources Management and Financing ................................................................. 57
4.8 . Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 57 Chapter 5 Ensenada Region Water Resource Stakeholder Analysis .......................................... 59
5.1 Chapter overview .................................................................................................................. 59 5.2 Profile of the Ensenada Region Water Use ................................................................... 59 5.3 Water use and water users for the Ensenada Region aquifers ............................. 62
5.3.1 The City of Ensenada ................................................................................................................... 62 5.3.2 Maneadero Valley ......................................................................................................................... 67 5.3.3 Guadalupe Valley .......................................................................................................................... 69 5.3.4 La Mision Water Use and Users .............................................................................................. 71
5.4 Ensenada Region Resource Stakeholders and Water Users Support for Water Fund 73 5.5 Ensenada Region Workshop ............................................................................................. 75
5.5.1 Workshop questionnaire Outcomes ..................................................................................... 75 5.5.2 Existing water management..................................................................................................... 75
5.6 Stakeholder Water Fund support.................................................................................... 76 5.6.1 Political support for a Water Fund ........................................................................................ 77
5.7 Water user support for Water Fund—evidence from Guadalupe Valley survey 78
5.7.1 Opinions about management ................................................................................................... 78 5.7.2 Conservation attitudes ............................................................................................................... 78 5.7.3 Collaboration and water governance ................................................................................... 78 5.7.4 Watershed conservation and cultural heritage enhancement ................................... 80 5.7.5 Groundwater quality ................................................................................................................... 80
5.8 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................................................... 81 Chapter 6 Opportunities and Challenges for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region................. 82
6.1 Opportunities for a Water Fund ...................................................................................... 82 6.2 Challenges for a Water Fund ............................................................................................. 83 6.3 A practical approach for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region ......................... 83
6.3.1 Water Management Problems for a Water Fund in Ensenada ................................. 85 6.3.2 How large a Water Fund might be needed? ....................................................................... 85 6.3.3 Funding strategy ........................................................................................................................... 85
Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 86 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 87 References ..................................................................................................................................... 88
vii Final Report
List of Figures Figure 2-1. Municipality of Ensenada in Baja California ............................................................... 4 Figure 2-2. Daily water supply to the city of Ensenada and projections according to INEGI’s population projections. Assuming a per capita supply of 220 l/person d and due to a lack of new water sources, a deficit of water would be expected since 2006. Yet, a decrease in water supply of 180 l/person d in recent years has avoided such deficit though may be expected for 2014……….5 Figure 2-3. Area of study in the Ensenada Region. ......................................................................... 6 Figure 2-4. Ejido land ownership in the Study Area. ...................................................................... 7 Figure 2-5. Historical precipitation (mm) at the Emilio López Zamora dam (Ensenada) climate station 1923-2007. ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-6. Historical precipitation (mm) at the Maneadero climate station 1977-2008. ............... 8 Figure 2-7. Precipitation at the Guadalupe valley, Olivares Mexicanos climate station 1953-2007. ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2-8. Average yearly precipitation (mm) at La Misión according to La Boquilla Santa Rosa climate station (1948-2007). .......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-9. Historical evolution of total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the Guadalupe aquifer (from Ramírez-Hernández et al., 2007). ........................................................................... 18 Figure 2-10. Forecast of water supply and demand for the City of Ensenada (Source: CEA 2013) ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-11. Map showing estimated physical aquifer boundaries (IMIP) and CONAGUA jurisdictional aquifer boundaries. Source: IMIP and CONAGUA websites. ................................ 21 Figure 3-1. Watershed Organization Region 1: Baja California. Watershed Councils in the Baja California roughly follow state political boundaries, these are: 1) Baja California, and 2) Baja California Sur (not shown in map). (Source: CONAGUA 2012) ................................................. 23 Figure 3-2. The 2030 Water Agenda Goals and Timeline (Source: OECD 2013) ........................ 28 Figure 3-3. Institutional Stakeholders of Water Resources Management (Source: OECD 2013). 31 Figure 3-4. Ecosystem services and protected areas. Source: CONAFOR prioritary areas .......... 36 Figure 4-1. Estimated share of the gross domestic products by sector (Adapted from IMIP 2010). ....................................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4-2. Key financial flows in Mexico's water sector (Source: OECD 2013). ....................... 43 Figure 4-3. Water demand projections to 2030 according to CEA. .............................................. 45 Figure 4-4. Location of the 250 l/s projected desalination plant at Avenida Pedro Loyola (from Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V.) ............................................................................................... 45 Figure 4-5. Environmental protection infrastructure suggested by Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V. for the protection of La Lagunita (from Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V.). .......................... 46 Figure 4-6. Proposed aqueduct El Hongo-Guadalupe valley for supplying wáter to the city of Ensenada. ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4-7. Volume of water sold by CESPE 2007-2012. ............................................................ 52 Figure 5-1 Ensenada Region Primary Hydrological Systems and Water Infrastructure ............... 59 Figure 5-2 Ensenada Region water use by category and aquifer.(Source: Author calculations with information from IMIP 2010) ........................................................................................................ 61 Figure 5-3. Ensenada Region Water Balance Chart (With information from REPDA 2013) ....... 63 Figure 5-4. Schematic of water supply for urban demand to the city of Ensenada and wastewater treatment plants average treatment during 2012............................................................................ 64 Figure 5-5. Water supplied for Ensenada’s urban demand 2010-2012. ........................................ 64 Figure 5-6. Volume of water delivered, sold and unaccounted for 2007-2012. ............................ 65 Figure 5-7 Key Stakeholder involvement in establishment of a Water Fund ................................ 75 Figure 5-8. Stakeholder opinions about water management. ........................................................ 76
viii Final Report
Figure 5-9 Workshop questionnaire results. Number of respondents answering yes in each option. ....................................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 5-10 Ejidos, undeveloped areas and protected areas in the Ensenada Region. .................. 80
ix Final Report
List of Tables Table 2-1. Watersheds and subwatersheds classification in the study area. .................................. 12 Table 2-2. Polygonal borders of the Ensenada aquifer. ................................................................. 13 Table 2-3. Polygonal borders of the La Misión aquifer................................................................ 14 Table 2-4. Polygonal borders of the Guadalupe aquifer. ............................................................... 15 Table 2-5. Polygonal borders of the Maneadero aquifer. .............................................................. 16 Table 3-1. Restoration needs by land use type in protected areas (adapted from CONAFOR 2007) ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 Table 4-1. Economic sector employment and gross domestic product (GDP) in the Ensenada municipality in 2009. Source, adapted from INEGI (INEGI 2009). ............................................. 40 Table 4-2. Water productivity by large sector after CONAGUA (2009b) .................................... 41 Table 4-3. Existing programs for the water sector. ....................................................................... 49 Table 4-4. Fees for water use ( MXP/100 /m3) availability zone and use (Source: CONAGUA 2011). ............................................................................................................................................. 50 Table 4-5. Water tariffs for domestic use in urban and rural areas for May 2013 (from CESPE). 53 Table 4-6. Water tariffs for non-domestic use in urban and rural areas for May 2013 (from CESPE). ......................................................................................................................................... 54 Table 4-7. Water use by large user and region. Source: Author calculations from IMIP 2010, CESPE 2013 and other planning documents. ................................................................................ 55 Table 5-1. Ensenada Region Water Balance (Source: CONAGUA 2003, 2009).......................... 61 Table 5-2. Ensenada Water Use Categories (Source: REPDA 2013). .......................................... 66 Table 5-3. Maneadero Water Use Categories (Source: REPDA 2013). ........................................ 68 Table 5-4. Guadalupe Water Use Categories (Source: REPDA 2013). ........................................ 70 Table 5-5. La Mision Water Use categories (Source REPDA 2013). ........................................... 72 Table 5-6. Water resources stakeholders and water user's interests. ............................................. 74 Table 6-1. Summary of preliminary Water Fund findings for the Ensenada Region. ................... 83
x Final Report
Acronyms and Abbreviations [translation needed]
ACRONYM Description ANEAS Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Agua y Saneamiento de México.
National Association of Water and Sanitation Utilities in Mexico. ANP Area Natural Protegida. Natural Protected Area APAZU Programa de Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento en Zonas Urbanas.
Potable water, sewage and sanitation for urban areas. ASA Administración Sustentable del Agua. Sustainable Water Management CADER Centros de Apoyo para el Desarrollo Rural. Rural development support
center. CANACINTRA Cámara Nacional de la Industria de Transformación. National chamber for
manufacturing industry. CDI Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de Pueblos Indígenas. National
commission for indian community development. CEA Comisión Estatal del Agua. State Water Commission CESPE Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Ensenada. Public services state
commission of Ensenada CFE Comisión Federal de Electricidad. Federal electricity commission. CICESE Centro de Investigación Científica y de Educación Superior de Ensenada CONACYT Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología. National Council for Science and
Technology CONAFOR Comisión Nacional Forestal. National forestry commission CONAGUA (CNA)
Comisión Nacional del Agua. National water comission
CONAPO Consejo Nacional de Poblacion. National population council COTAS Comisión Tecnicos de Aguas Subterraneas. Technical groundwater
committees. FMCN Fondo Mexicano para la Conservacion de la Naturaleza AC FONADIN Fondo Nacional de Infrastructura. National infrastructure fund. FONDEN Fondo de Desastres Naturales. Natural distasters fund FONREGION Regional Fund GDP (PIB) Producto Interno Bruto. Gross domestic product. IMIP Instituto Municipal de Investigacion y Planeacion de Ensenada B.C.
Municipal Research and Planning Institute o Ensenada, Baja California IMTA Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua. Mexican Institute for water
technology. INE Instituto Nacional de Ecología. National Institute of Ecology INEGI Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. National Institute
for Statistics, Geography and Information Technology. IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management LAN (NWL) Ley de Aguas Nacionales. National water law LFD (FDL) Ley Federal de Derechos. Federal Duty Law Mm3/yr Million cubic meters per year NAICS North American Industry Classification System NGO Non-governmental Organization NOM Norma Oficial Mexicana. Mexican Official Norm OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
xi Final Report
ACRONYM Description PADUA Programa de Adquisición de Derechos de Uso de Agua. SAGARPA water use
rights buyback program. PAL Programa Agua Limpia. Clean Water Program PES Payment for Environmental Services. PIAE Programa Integral del Agua de Ensenada. Integrated Water Program for
Ensenada. PIAME Programa Integral del Agua del Municipio de Ensenada. Ensenada integrated
water resources management plan. PND Plan Nacional de Desarrollo. National Development Plan PNH Plan Nacional Hídrico. National Water Plan ppm Water quality, parts per million PRMDR Programa de Rehabilitación y Modernización de Distritos de Riego.
Rehabilitation and modernization of irrigation districts. PRODDER Programa de Devolución de Derechos de Agua. CONAGUA water use rights
buyback program. PROFEPA Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente. Federal Environmental
Protection Agency Procurement. PROMAGUA Programa para la Modernización de Organismos Operadores de Agua. Water
utilities modernization program. PROSANEAR Programa de Saneamiento de Aguas Residuales. Wastewater sanitation
program. PROSSAPYS Programa de Agua Potable y Saneamiento en Comunidades Rurales. Potable
water and sanitation program for rural communities. PSAH Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos. Payment for
Hydrological Services PTAR Programa de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales. Wastewater treatment
program. RAMSAR Convención de Ramsar de 1971. Ramsar Convention of 1971. REPDA Registro Público de Derechos de Agua. Public Registry of Water Use Rights. SAGARPA Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca, Desarrollo Rural y Alimentación.
Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Rural Development and Food Ministry. SEDESOL Secretaría de Desarrollo Social. Ministry of Social Development. SEMARNAT Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Environment and
Natural Resources Ministry SHCP Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público. Mexico Treasury Ministry TDS Water quality, Total Dissolved Solids TNC The Nature Conservancy UABC Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Autonomous University of Baja
California. WWF World Wildlife Fund
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
The South Coast and Deserts Region and Mexico Northern Central American Program propose to assess the feasibility of implementing a water-fund-like program in the Ensenada Region. Previous studies show that this region is likely to become constrained in water supply in the decades to come (Waller-Barrera et al., 2009). A Water Fund might help to address water supply threats in the region. A Water Fund is an innovative water management tool that serves to compensate for the ecosystem services that nature provides to humans. Water Funds attract capital contributions from the largest water users in a region such as water utilities, irrigators and other economic sectors. These contributions are invested in the financial market and the resulting returns are invested to leverage existing funds to conserve the watershed, create or strengthen protected areas, pay for conservation easements, and obtain financial and technical support to promote more eco-friendly agriculture and livestock systems (Calvache et al., 2012). This report provides a preliminary characterization of water governance, its economic context and water stakeholder interaction as related to a potential Water Fund in the Ensenada Region. The Ensenada Region for the purposes of this study includes the area comprised by the CONAGUA aquifer boundaries of Ensenada, Guadalupe, La Mision, and Maneadero. Stakeholders for this study include water users and associations of users, government agencies and institutions, non-governmental organizations and other civil groups. The Ensenada Region hosts a population of more than 300,000 people (INEGI 2013), the highest value agriculture per unit area in Baja California and a pole for tourism. However, water supply in the future for this region is uncertain due to low rainfall, aquifer overdraft, and aquifer saline intrusion that needs is growing with water demands. The coastal range that includes the Sierra de San Pedro Mártir provides ecosystem services through forest areas and shrub lands that help protect hydrologic basin, biodiversity, and sources headwaters for the coastal and inland aquifers from which the Ensenada Region relies upon for most of its water supply. Some promising water management challenges are to: 1) protect aquifer recharge sources; 2) reduce and eventually eliminate overexploitation, and 3) water supply portfolio strategies that include water demand management, alternative water supply sources, and buyback of water concession titles. Some of these water management actions are either in consideration or at implementation in the water basin management plans. Yet a water fund may help organize and increase participation in these actions, but it does not add, delete or modify any existing municipal, state or federal laws and regulations. To assess potential for a Water Fund, primary and secondary data were collected. Interviews from diverse affiliations were done in a stakeholder’s informational workshop held on the Guadalupe Valley on February 19, 2013. More than 20 participants included utilities, producers, state water commissions, academics, and other entities. Post workshop interviews were also conducted with federal, state and municipal agencies as well as local organizations. Secondary sources include a vast survey of documents including federal, regional, state and municipal government plans, reports and other produced by organizations. This pre-feasibility assessment prepares the ground for further and more formal feasibility assessment with hydrological and infrastructural, socio economic and institutional analyses for the establishment of a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region. For that end, work groups can be
2 Final Report
assembled that include government institutions, non-governmental and/or non-profit organizations, research institutions, private interests and the civil society. For the hydrological and infrastructure component, objectives and prioritization of conservation areas for the Ensenada Region could be established. The socio-economic and the institutional analyses will provide a more focalized set of stakeholders in the Water Fund, the resources needed to undertake the activities in the fund and its long-term sustainability plan. This report is organized as follows. First, a background on Water Funds in general is provided following the guidelines in Calvache et al. (2012) for Water Funds. A summary of Water Funds have worked out in other regions of Mexico and Latin America follows the background. Chapter 3 provides an overview of water governance, and the water legal framework in Mexico and the Ensenada Region. This is followed by a summary of the economic context for water supply and demand in Mexico and the Ensenada Region in Chapter 4. Stakeholder characterization is presented in Chapter 5. Opportunities and Impediments for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region are presented in Chapter 6. Finally, some concluding remarks close and integrate this report with an infrastructural component.
3 Final Report
Chapter 2 Water Funds Overview
2.1 Introduction
A Water Fund is a relatively recent water management tool and functions similar to a payment for environmental (ecosystem) services scheme, by attracting capital contributions from large water users in an organized and transparent manner and adequately invest these resources to maximize their return on investment (Calvache, et al. 2012). According to Calvache et al. (2012) in a Water Fund, collected capital contributions are invested in the financial market usually through trust funds. The financial returns are invested to:
1. leverage public and private funds to conserve the watershed, 2. create or strengthen public protected areas, 3. pay conservation easements, 4. provide financial and technical support to promote ecofriendly agriculture and livestock
systems, 5. develop community initiatives 6. invest in improved infrastructure and technologies to manage water resources
sustainability A Water Funds approach acknowledges natural ecosystems as providers of direct benefits to humans though water quality control, hydrologic regulation and sediment retention. Often, areas with good conservation practices have a positive impact on ecosystem services. Other strengths in a Water Fund include:
1. an integrated watershed management approach, 2. a long-term conservation view, 3. a transparent financial mechanism to undertake the Water Fund goals, 4. a better connection to public policies, 5. a venue for pooling existing and additional financial resources, 6. and participatory involvement of civil society and the business sector
To establish goals and activities in a Water Fund, several key questions are to be answered: 1) what are the ecosystem services in the region and how can these be prioritized; 2) what is the area of influence of these ecosystem services; and 3) which stakeholders must be considered. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) includes Water Funds as one of the major strategies to conserve large river basins aiming to protect headwaters. As of 2012, TNC has 12 Water Funds projects in Latin America, of which eight are in operation. Countries with water fund initiatives include Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and the Dominican Republic.
2.2 The Ensenada Region and its Ecosystem Services
The municipality of Ensenada is the largest in the state in territorial extent (73% or 51,511 km2), yet is among the least populated municipalities (14.4% of the state population). It includes 23 municipal delegations (Figure 2-1). For the area of study these are La Mision, El Porvenir, Francisco Zarco, El Sauzal, San Antonio de las Minas, Chapultepec and Maneadero.
4 Final Report
Figure 2-1. Municipality of Ensenada in Baja California
The city of Ensenada roughly uses 22 million cubic meters per year (Mm3/yr) of water from all its sources with about 20% system losses. The total concession volume for the City of Ensenada is 32.6 Mm3/yr and includes surface and groundwater sources. The additional rural areas in the municipality use 7.5 Mm3/yr. Despite the water concession exceeding the current demand in the urban areas of Ensenada, the allocation from the Colorado River (9 Mm3/yr), is currently not used. Thus there was a projected deficit for 2007 of about 0.5 Mm3/yr for the City of Ensenada (IMIP 2010). However, due to water rationing in domestic users, the per capita water consumption has decreased from 220 l per person per day to about 180 l per person per day (CESPE, unofficial data), so the forecasted deficit has yet to be reached (Figure 2-2).
5 Final Report
Figure 2-2. Daily water supply to the city of Ensenada and projections according to INEGI’s population projections. Assuming a per capita supply of 220 l/person d and due to a lack of new water sources, a deficit of water would be expected since 2006. Yet, a decrease in water supply of 180 l/person d in recent years has avoided such deficit though may be expected for 2014.
Ecosystem services can be flows of materials, energy and information from nature that combine with industrial and human capital to provide human well-being. Among the ecosystem services the Ensenada Region provides are: aesthetics, headwaters for aquifer recharge, groundwater supply, and habitat for native species. These can help regulate the water cycle in the region, improving groundwater recharge and quality that ultimately affect water supply. In addition, carbon sinks exist within the agricultural and wildlife areas of the Ensenada Region, that may help mitigate the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
2.3 Area of Influence
The Ensenada Region in this study is given by the aquifer polygons of La Mision, Ensenada, Guadalupe and Maneadero (light blue area in 2-3). The relief in the topographic base map provides a sense of the orography in the region. Seasonal streamflows within the aquifer polygons are usually the largest sources of aquifer recharge according to hydrologic studies, with significant induced recharge from irrigation in the agricultural areas of Guadalupe, La Mision, and Maneadero (CONAGUA, 2009).
6 Final Report
Figure 2-3. Area of study in the Ensenada Region.
Within the area of influence more than 50% of total area is in ejido land (Figure 2-4), a form of land tenure in Mexico that is communally used for agriculture and each of member of the ejido is able to plant in a designated parcel. Ejido land owners are thus critical for conservation activities of the areas that provide water recharge to aquifers. Land management practices in the ejido may affect ecosystem services for the Ensenada Region and are promising partners for the establishment of a Water Fund.
7 Final Report
Figure 2-4. Ejido land ownership in the Study Area.
2.3.1 Physical characteristics
Climate and precipitation
Ensenada urban region, Ensenada aquifer According to INEGI (2001), the study area main climate is dry Mediterranean with rain during winter. The average seasonal temperatures is 12-18°C; total annual precipitation is 100 to >300 mm. Historically, the most humid years have been 1978 (514.5 mm), 1983 448.5) and 1998 (434.1) while the driest years have been 1989 (58.8), 1998 (106.2) and 2002 (97.0). The historical average annual precipitation in Ensenada, at the Emilio Lopez Zamora dam is 258.06 mm according to CONAGUA (Figure 2-5).
8 Final Report
Figure 2-5. Historical precipitation (mm) at the Emilio López Zamora dam (Ensenada) climate station 1923-2007.
Valle de Maneadero The Maneadero aquifer and the city of Ensenada share the same type of climate. However, the historical average annual precipitation in Maneadero is 208.6 mm according to data from the Maneadero climate station operated by CONAGUA (Figure 2-6).
Figure 2-6. Historical precipitation (mm) at the Maneadero climate station 1977-2008.
9 Final Report
Valle de Guadalupe According to CONAGUA 2002, the climate is temperate, with rainy season in winter. The climate station located at Olivares Mexicanos at Guadalupe valley has a 54 y record (1953-2007), with an average temperature of 16.9°C, minimum of -9°C and maximum of 45.5°C. Rainfall occurs form November to April with an average of 288.84 mm (1953-2007) (Figure 2-7).
Figure 2-7. Precipitation at the Guadalupe valley, Olivares Mexicanos climate station 1953-2007.
Despite the relatively low precipitation, the atmospheric humidity is high on the Pacific coastline and fog tends to reach the valley and cover the xeric scrublands during the day. At night, the fog condenses forming dew and, therefore, a source of water for the valley’s vegetation and allowing for less extreme temperatures during day and night (SEMARNAT, 2006).
Valle de La Mision According to CONAGUA (2002), the climate is temperate, semi-arid, with rainy season during winter. There is a strong influence of winds from the west especially during winter. Average temperature in 15C; the warmest months being June-September and the coldest November-April. According to the precipitation data from La Boquilla Santa Rosa climate station, de average annual precipitation from 1948 to 2007 was 266.07 mm (Figure 2-8).
10 Final Report
Figure 2-8. Average yearly precipitation (mm) at La Mision according to La Boquilla Santa Rosa climate station (1948-2007).
Orography
The urban area of Ensenada is located in the Ensenada municipality, the largest in the country. Its orography system comprises two large systems: Sierra de San Pedro Martir (3,100 m) and Sierra de Juarez (1,980 m), both located at the East of the study area.
Ensenada aquifer (urban area) Located on an open watershed, the materials that fill the aquifer are medium coarse sands to fine sands, clays, and conglomerates. The infiltration in the surrounding sierras occurs by geological faults of rock fractures. The elevated zones to the East provides low permeability as runoff from the elevated areas gain high velocity and does not allow for proper natural infiltration of the aquifer before water reaches the sea. The Ensenada aquifer has a watershed area of 971 km2, representing 1.3% of the total area of the Baja California state
Valle de Guadalupe Formed by a topographic depression of tectonic origin by the disruption of the geological basement caused by the intrusion of granitic rocks. Coarse material were added by the surrounding sierras and accumulated at the base of the rift and the entrance of the valley. Due to the weatherization of the Sierra de Juarez the depression was filled with granular deposits transported by the natural drainage to the watershed. The aquifer is located between 300-400 m above sea level and there is a height difference between the valley and the sierra of approximately 300 m (CONAGUA, 2002).
11 Final Report
The aquifer is unconfined and heterogeneous. The granular material has been estimated between 1,943-2,300 Mm3 with a storage coefficient of 10% for the first 50 m and 8% for the rest of the aquifer. The aquifer is divided into two tectonic areas: a) Fosa Calafia (Calafia graben): located at the northwest of the valley, it has a triangular form and with a funnel at the base with a depth of approximately 350 m, filled with coarse sand, silt, gravels and sand. According to CONAGUA (2002) two thirds of the area is filled with unclassified granular materials with clay lenses and gravels possibly with large chunks of rocks. The estimated volumetric space is 1,232 Km3 and considering an unsaturated superficial strata of 10 m the volumetric capacity is 113.5 Mm3 using a coefficient of 0.10 for the first 90 m and 0.80 for the following 200 m. b) Fosa El Porvenir (El Porvenir graben): located at the southeast of the valley, it has an oval form with less deep baseline yet similar stratigraphic characteristics as a result of sedimentation of clays. Its maximum depth is 100 m and the estimated volumetric space is 1,084 km3. Considering an unsaturated superficial stratum of 10 m the storage capacity is 104.6 Mm3 assuming a storage coefficient of 0,10 for the first 50 m and 0.08 for the following 40 m. The storage area has been calculated at 20 km2 and the volumetric storage capacity has been calculated between 218.1-290 Mm3, of which 194.2 Mm3 are found at a depth <50 m. (D y S, 1999). However, Ramírez-Hernández et al. (2007) mentioned that the aquifer’s volumetric capacity is 340.25 Mm3.
Maneadero aquifer The valley is limited to the east with the Sierra de Juarez formation and the South with a steep cliff. The sloping hillsides are formed with extrusive and intrusive volcanic rocks and metamorphic rocks while the southern wall is made by sedimentary rocks of marine origin. The high formation to the East and the marine terrace are a result of the emergence of the Baja California peninsula during the Pleistocene era. During the years the weatherization of the East and South borders have produced intense erosion and the formation of canyons like the San Carlos and San Francisquito at the East and Las Animas at the South of the valley. The Maneadero aquifer watershed has an extension of 1,866. km2 (CONAGUA, 2002).
Valle de La Misión The valle de La Misión borders on the north to the Meseta del Baile, to the East to the Fermin and Cuate hills, to the south to the Bahía Todos Santos and to the west to the Pacific ocean. Just as the Guadalupe valley, the La Misión valley is part of the Río Guadalupe watershed that starts of the western side of the Sierra de Juarez at approximately 1,700 m over sea level. The La Mision valley is formed by a thin topographic depression that comprises the La Mision creek that starts on the east and ends on the west at the Pacific Ocean. Its hillsides are steep and the topography is generally rugged. The La Mision aquifer has an area of 613 km3, representing 8.5% of the state’s territory.
12 Final Report
Surface hydrology
The study area does not comprise any major rivers, however it does have creeks that have water only during the rainy season. The region is located within a large watershed that comprises a series of aquifers and creeks. The large watershed is conformed by subwatersheds and microwatersheds. Our study area has the following elements: Table 2-1. Watersheds and subwatersheds classification in the study area.
MANEADERO ENSENADA, MANEADERO, GUADALUPE AND LA MISIÓN
Las Animas creek – Santo Domingo creek watershed
Tijuana river – Maneadero creek watershed
Santo Tomas river subwatershed Las Animas creek subwatershed
Maneadero creek subwatershed Ensenada subwatershed Guadalupe river subwatershed
Guadalupe river subwatershed Comprises an area of 2,448.37 km2. The Guadalupe creek is located in this subwatershed and has a length of 115 km. It originates at the Sierra de Juarez and receives the names of La Republica, El Tularcito, Agua Dulce and El Barbon along its course. The El Barbon creek runs through the Hanson lagoon and is joined by the creeks of El Sauz, El Ranchito and Barrancas. It flows through the valleys of Ojos Negros and Real del Castillo and at its end it meets the creeks of Agua Caliente and Cañon de Jamatay. When it reaches the Guadalupe valley it adopts the name of Guadalupe creek and keeps flowing until it reaches the area of La Mision where it adopts the name of La Mision creek and finally reaches the Pacific ocean. The microwatershed of the valley of Guadalupe has an area of 896 km, bordering on the north with the Las Palmas subwatershed, south with the Ensenada subwatershed, east with the Real del Castillo microwatershed and west to the La Mision microwatershed. As mentioned earlier, the La Mision creek is part of the watershed of the Guadalupe river; it is 28 km in length. Its runoff area is 471.8 km2 and its main influents being La Zorra and Agua Escondida.
Maneadero creek subwatershed Comprises an area of 895.97 km2. The San Carlos creek is located at the northern part the of the subwatershed, an originates from the Sierra de Juarez at an elevation of 1,863 m and formed by the confluence of the San Salvador and Santa Clara creeks. Once in the Maneadero valley, the San Carlos creek also receives the name of Maneadero creek. According to CEA (2003), the annual runoff is calculated at 10.34 Mm3.
Las Animas creek subwatershed Comprises an area of 1,020.92 km2. The Las Animas creek originates at 1,250 m at the Sierra de Juarez, has a length of approximately 75 km, and flows into the Punta Banda estuary. According to CEA (2003), the annual runoff is 22.96 Mm3.
13 Final Report
Ensenada subwatershed Comprises an area of 626.94 m2 and includes the El Sauzal and the El Gallo creek. The dam Ingeniero Emilio Lopez Zamora is located in this subwatershed, the only hydraulic infrastructure to control runoff in the urban area of Ensenada with a calculated available storage volume of 2.61 Mm3 despite a total storage of 6.72 Mm3. The overflow capacity is 121 m3/s. The subwatershed annual runoff is calculated at 3.90 Mm3 (CEA, 2003).
Groundwater
As mentioned earlier, surface water within the study area is almost non-existent; the main water sources are four aquifers, namely: Ensenada, Maneadero, Guadalupe and La Mision.
Ensenada aquifer According to the most recent study by CONAGUA (2009), the Ensenada aquifer has the following polygonal borders: Table 2-2. Polygonal borders of the Ensenada aquifer.
Vertices Latitude Longitude 1 31N 54’ 7.8’’ 116W 19’ 15.9’’ 2 31N 51’ 34.6’’ 116W 27’ 6.0’’ 3 31N 48’ 52.1’’ 116W 27’ 20.3’’ 4 31N 49’ 43.4’’ 116W 30’ 56.2’’ 5 31N 49’ 53.7’’ 116W 33’ 24.7’’ 6 31N 48’ 48.3’’ 116W 36’ 33.0’’ From 6 to 7 by the
low tide line along the coastline
7 32N 4’ 15.0’’ 116W 52’ 56.1’’ 8 32N 3’ 45.2’’ 116W 50’ 3.9’’ 9 32N 0’ 31.5’’ 116W 44’ 30.6’’ 10 31N 58’ 52.8’’ 116W 41’ 32.7’’ 11 32N 1’ 20.9’’ 116W 35’ 46.7’’ 12 32N 1’ 32.6’’ 116W 33’ 52.7’’ 13 32N 3’ 10.9’’ 116W 30’ 23.8’’ 14 32N 1’ 24.9’’ 116W 28’ 52.0’’ 15 32N 1’ 4.7’’ 116W 26’ 39.2’’ 16 31N 59’ 27.9’’ 116W 22’ 4.4’’ 17 31N 55’55.2’’ 116W 21’ 45.5’’ 1 31N 54’7.8’’ 116W19’15.9’’ The Ensenada aquifer is of the unconfined porous media type. According to a study by Proyectos, Estudios y Consultoría (1996), the aquifer had 118 authorized wells extracting 4 Mm3/y of which 3 Mm3 were used for public urban use and 1 Mm3 for industrial use. The natural recharge was calculated at 3.7 Mm3/y, therefore, the aquifer is overexploited. Moreover, according to the users registry (REPDA) as for April 30, 2002, the concession volume was 9,283,206 m2/y, resulting in an overconcession of 5,583,208 m3/y for 2002. According to the most recent national census (CONAGUA, 2009), the Ensenada aquifer has an average yearly recharge of 3.7 Mm3, with a designated (allowed for) extraction of 10.55 Mm3
resulting in a deficit of 6.85 Mm3.
14 Final Report
La Misión aquifer The La Misión aquifer has the following polygonal borders (CONAGUA, 2009): Table 2-3. Polygonal borders of the La Misión aquifer.
Vertices Latitude Longitude Comments 1 32N 4’ 15.0’’ 116W 52’ 56.1’’ From 1 to 2 by the
low tide line along the coastline
2 32N 10’ 26.6’’ 116W 54’ 24.8’’ 3 32N 12’ 52.2’’ 116W 44’39.1’ 4 32N 12’ 38.9’’ 116W 40’ 22.1’’ 5 32N 13’ 24.3’’ 116W 36’ 48.2’’ 6 32N 13’ 4.4’’ 116W 33´48.1´´ 7 32N 12’ 24.0’’ 116W 31’ 15.0’’ 8 32N 10’ 26.9’’ 116W 31’45.4’’ 9 32N 6’ 19.9’’ 116W 40’ 42.1’’ 10 32N 3’ 43.6´´ 116W 40’54.0’’ 11 32N 0’ 31.5’’ 116W 44’ 30.6’’ 12 32N 3’ 45.2’’ 116W 50’ 3.9’’ 1 32N 4’ 15.0’’ 116W 52’ 56.1’’ The 1973 census identified 86 extraction units, 26 inactive. In 1999, the number of units had increased to 131 (CONAGUA, 2002). According to the most recent national census (CONAGUA, 2009), the La Mision aquifer has an average yearly recharge of 6.5 Mm3, with a designated (allowed for) extraction of 38.75 Mm3 resulting in a deficit of 17.57 Mm3.
Guadalupe aquifer The Guadalupe aquifer has the following polygonal borders (CONAGUA, 2009):
15 Final Report
Table 2-4. Polygonal borders of the Guadalupe aquifer.
Vertices Latitude Longitude Comments 1 32N 1’ 33.2’’ 116W 21’ 41.7’’ 2 31N 59’ 27.9’’ 116W 22’ 4.4’’ 3 32N 1’ 4.7’’ 116W 26’ 39.2’’ 4 32N 1’ 24.9’’ 116W 28’ 52.0’’ 5 32N 3’ 10.9’’ 116W 30’ 23.8’’ 6 32N 1’ 32.6’’ 116W 33’ 52.7’’ 7 32N 1’ 20.9’’ 116W 35’ 46.7’’ 8 31N 58’ 52.8’’ 116W 41’ 32.7’’ 9 32N 0’ 31.5’’ 116W 44’ 30.6’’ 10 32N 3’ 43.6’’ 116W 40’ 54.0’’ 11 32N 6’ 19.9’’ 116W 40’ 42.1’’ 12 32N 10’26.9’’ 116W 31’ 45.4’’ 13 32N 12’ 24.0’’ 116W 31’ 15.0’’ 14 32N 13’ 4.4’’ 116W 33’ 48.1’’ 15 32N 13’ 24.3’’ 116W 36’ 48.2’’ 16 32N 15’ 17.7’’ 116W 28’ 26.4’’ 17 32N 13’ 27.7’’ 116W 20´42.8´´ 18 32N 15’ 8.1’’ 116W 15’ 35.9’ 19 32N 11’ 16.4’’ 116W 15’ 34.5’’ 20 32N 12’ 38.6’’ 116W 11’ 36.8’’ 21 32N 9’ 45.5’’ 116W 4’ 46.0’’ 22 32N 5’ 30.5’’ 116W 12’ 19.3’’ 23 32N 5’ 29.9’’ 116W 14’ 52.9’’ 1 32N 1’ 33.2’’ 116W 21’ 41.7’’ In 1967, the Guadalupe aquifer had 62 water extraction units, corresponding to 42 wells and 20 norias (shallow wells)1 with a combined extraction capacity of 159 l/s. In 1973 the units had increased to 132 and by 1977 they summed 295 of which 212 were active with an extraction capacity of 1.173 m3/s, 97% were used for agriculture irrigation (Ramirez-Hernández et al., 2007). In 1981 the number of units was 359, divided into 178 wells, 179 norias and 2 springs. By 1998 the number had increased to 799 units, 195 wells, 601 norias and 4 springs; however, only 148 wells and 297 norias were active. The CONAGUA (2002) census detected 799 water extraction units, divided into 195 deep wells, 600 norias and 4 springs. Only 445 units were active, corresponding to 148 wells and 297 norias. According to the State’s Hydraulic Program 2003-2007, the Guadalupe aquifer had an extraction infrastructure of 870 extraction units, divided into 191 extraction wells, 677 norias and 2 springs. The depth of the wells varies from 3-17 m with an average of 15 m, the average pipe width is 3 inches allowing for an extraction of 12 l/s.
1 “Noria”, in this document is a well that did not required machinery for its excavation and, therefore, is usually shallow. On the other hand a “pozo” is a proper well that required the use of machinery for its excavation and are usually deep. The term shallow and deep are ambiguous.
16 Final Report
The most recent national census (CONAGUA, 2009) establishes that the Guadalupe aquifer has an average yearly recharge of 23.9 Mm3, a natural discharge of 1.0 Mm3, with a designated (allowed for) extraction of 47.79 Mm3 resulting in a deficit of 2.29 Mm3.
Maneadero aquifer The Maneadero aquifer has the following polygonal borders (CONAGUA, 2009): Table 2-5. Polygonal borders of the Maneadero aquifer.
Vértice Latitude Longitude Comments 1 31N 51’ 14.6’’ 116W 19’ 16.0’’ 2 31N 49’ 38.3’’ 116W 11’ 24.4’’ 3 31N 48’ 40.2’’ 116W 9’ 55.9’’ 4 31N 47’ 33.8’’ 116W 7’ 51.5’’ 5 31N 47’ 20.0’’ 116W 4’ 54.4’’ 6 31N 46’ 41.2’’ 116W 2’ 16.8’’ 7 31N 44’ 14.4’’ 115W 59’ 19.5’’ 8 31N 38’ 11.6’’ 116W 3’ 48.6’’ 9 31N 38’ 35.7’’ 116W 9’ 40.4’’ 10 31N 36’ 24.2’’ 116W 13’ 42.7’’ 11 31N 36’ 24.9’’ 116W 21’ 27.8’’ 12 31N 36’ 1.2’’ 116W 23’ 42.7’’ 13 31N 36’ 23.6’’ 116W 33’ 20.7’’ 14 31N 35’ 55.3’’ 116W 35’ 27.2’’ 15 31N 33’ 17.3’’ 116W 41’ 21.3’’ From 15 to 16 by the
low tide line along the coastline
16 31N 48’ 48.3’’ 116W 36’ 33.0’’ 17 31N 49’ 53.7’’ 116W 33’ 45.5’’ 18 31N 49’ 43.4’’ 116W 30’ 56.2’’ 19 31N 48’ 52.1’’ 116W 27’ 20.3’’ 20 31N 51’ 34.6’’ 116W 27’ 6.0’’ 21 31N 54’ 7.8’’ 116W 19’ 15.9’’ 1 31N 51’ 14.7’’ 116W 19’ 16.0’’ According to CONAGUA (2002) the first recorded census dates for 1967 where 122 wells were accounted for, 112 for agricultural use, 2 industrial and 8 for domestic use; the overall extraction was 17.0 Mm3. Later, in 1971, the number of wells had increased to 213, of which 131 were equipped and active, 114 used for agriculture, and 17 for domestic/industrial use with an overall extraction of 20.0 Mm3. A study in 1974 reported 305 extraction units, 213 still active divided into 190 wells, 107 norias and 8 springs with an overall extraction of 17.0 Mm3 for agricultural use and 3.0 Mm3 for public urban use. By 1978 the total number of extraction units had increased to 323, with 223 active units, divided into 136 for agricultural use, 71 for domestic use and watering trough, 10 industrial use and 6 for urban use with a total extraction of 24.5 Mm3. In 1997, the number of units reached 522, divided into 338 wells, 175 as open-pit wells and 9 springs. However, only 243 deep wells and 86 open-pitwells were active.
17 Final Report
The CONAGUA (2002) study determined a volumetric storage capacity of 637.6 Mm3 assuming a watershed area of 64.1 km2. However, 34% of the area had a salinity >3,000 parts per million (ppm) with a storage volume of 215.8 Mm3. The rest of the aquifer had water >3,000 ppm (regular to good quality) corresponding to 421.7 Mm3. The study concludes that the allowed registered extractions added up to 37.66 Mm3/y resulting in a deficit of 16.8 Mm3. According to the most recent national census (CONAGUA, 2009), the Maneadero aquifer has an average yearly recharge of 20.8 Mm3, with a designated (allowed for) extraction of 38.75 Mm3 resulting in a deficit of 17.57 Mm3.
Water Quality and piezometry
Ensenada aquifer There are no known studies of water quality and piezometry for the Ensenada aquifer.
La Mision aquifer A study of 1989 determined that the water level of de La Mision aquifer was 2-8 m, with deeper values (7-8 m) on the east side of the aquifer while the rest had 2-6 m. According to such study, the level decreased 1.145 m from 1984-1989 with an average of 0.229 m/y. The transmisivity was calculated at 0.3-83.7 m2/d and hydraulic conductivities of 17.85 m/d (CONAGUA, 2002).
Maneadero aquifer Due to its importance both for agricultural production and as urban water supply for the city of Ensenada, the Maneadero aquifer has been extensively studied. According to a water quality study of 97 samples by CONAGUA (2002) resulted in 65% presented levels between 750-2,250 micromhos/cm and 35% exceeded 2,250 micromhos/cm meaning that the salinity of the water is very high and it is only suitable for use on soils with high permeability. There is a good amount of information on the aquifer’s piezometry. According to CONAGUA (2002), from 1973 to 1997 there has been a significant decrease on piezometric levels due to excess extraction of underground water in comparison to a relatively limited natural recharge. During the 25 years of monitoring over an area of 64.1 km2 the level tends to decrease from March through August and there is a partial recuperation afterwards. However, recuperation is always less than depletion, and being a costal aquifer in partial contact with seawater, there is seawater intrusion resulting in the increase of salinity levels of the underground water.
Guadalupe valley As with any aquifer, its total dissolved solids (TDS) content is determined by the surrounding geological composition of the rocks. In the Guadalupe valley the largest concentrations of TDS are found at the Francisco Zarco village, on the east of the valley. There is a high concentration of chloride, sulfates and water hardness in general. It is assumed that the high levels of chloride are caused by irrigation (CONAGUA, 2002). The high concentrations of sulfates and total hardness in norias at Francisco Zarco are possibly associated with oxidation of organic matter and organic residues (CONAGUA, 2002). Sodium has a uniform distribution along the valley as water circulates in between igneous intrusive rocks. The underground water has a relatively low content of TDS (<2000 parts per million) due to the resistance of igneous intrusive rocks to water erosion
18 Final Report
yet in certain places certain condition such as the presence of conglomerates and possible recirculation of irrigation water can cause an increase in TDS. Studies of TDS in the Guadalupe aquifer have found that in 1977 the SDT concentration varied from 600-3,000 ppm; in 1982 the SDT range was 300-3,700 ppm with an average of 1,300 ppm and in 1990 the range was 800-6,000 ppm. Hence, there has been a tendency to increase as can be observed in the following figure (Figure 2-9).
Figure 2-9. Historical evolution of total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration in the Guadalupe aquifer (from Ramírez-Hernández et al., 2007).
Moreover, a comparison of dissolved solids concentration from 2001 (Daesslé et al., 2006) and 2009 Salgado-Tránsito (2010) finds that in 2001 the average SDT concentration in underground water samples was 1,042 mg/l with a minimum of 410 mg/l and maximum of 2,720 mg/l., while in 2009 the average was 1,195 mg/l while the minimum was 350 mg/l and a maximum of 3,832 mg/l. As in other aquifers of the region, the natural recharge of the Guadalupe aquifer is fast. According to CONAGUA (2002) in 1998, in a year of extraordinary precipitation the water level varied from 0.20 m to 19.45 m. The deepest levels were detected at the southwest region, were natural recharge by the Guadalupe creek is minimum. On the other hand, the northeast had levels of 1-7 m and the area with the wells that pump water to the city of Ensenada had levels of 3-4 m. According to Ramírez-Hernández et al. (2007), a piezometric study conducted in 1997 showed that the maximum depths detected at fosa Calafia were 20 m, which were 15 m deeper than those
19 Final Report
found in a study in 1977. The fosa El Porvenir had a depletion of 5 m. Therefore, the volumetric capacity lost in the 1977-1997 period was calculated at 18.17 Mm3 at a yearly rate of 0.908 Mm3. The transmisivity coefficient was calculated at 3.4 x 10-4 to 5.24 x 10-2 m2/s with a greater frequency of coefficients above 1 x 10-2 m2/s.
2.4 Water challenges in the Ensenada Region
Water problems for the Ensenada Region of Baja California are numerous, yet for the purposes of maintaining the ecosystem services identified above, water problems can be grouped into four main categories: water supply unreliability, aquifer overdraft, saline intrusion in coastal aquifers and institutional inefficiencies in water management.
2.4.1 Water Supply Reliability
Population growth increases water demand over time it is likely to exceed current water supplies for the Ensenada Region either now or in the few next years (Waller Barrera et al. 2008). Figure 2-10 shows a forecast of water supply and demand from 2007 to 2030. Water demand trend is shown in a red thick line at the top of the chart. The area in light green, dark blue and cyan indicate the water supply volumes (all in liters per second) over time. Without additional water supply alternatives, the City of Ensenada might be suffering from water shortages since 2011 (CEA 2013). The 250 liters per second (lps, 7.9 Mm3/yr) proposed desalination plant facility (dark blue block) was planned to start operations in 2011 for augmenting supply and reducing pressure on the region’s aquifers (cyan block). An eventual connection to the Colorado River aqueduct may increase total water supply from aquifers, surface water and desalination up to more than 1,250 lps (nearly 39.5 Mm3/yr), enough to cope with projected water demands through year 2030. Although it is advisable to invest in the required infrastructure to decrease system loses from 20% to 10% in the potable water distribution system due to the cost associated, it is unlikely it will happen. However, as mentioned before (Figure 2-2), although not officially accepted, the practice of water rationing, especially during summer months, has made possible to decrease the per capita water allocation from 220 to 180 l/d person, resulting in no deficit yet officially acknowledged. High value agriculture is likely to remain the second largest water use in the region. However, water supply sources have a less certain future in that water quality degradation in the coastal aquifers combined with water overallocation, and slow implementation of long term water supply augmentation actions create an opportunity to improve reliability through the establishment of a Water Fund.
20 Final Report
Figure 2-10. Forecast of water supply and demand for the City of Ensenada (Source: CEA 2013)
2.4.2 Aquifer Overdraft
According to the Ensenada area water management plans, all four major aquifers are either overexploited or without availability of new concessions (IMIP 2008). La Mision is the aquifer closest to equilibrium, however CONAGUA has recently published an update to availability for new concessions in La Mission Aquifer and indicates that there is no availability for new concessions (CONAGUA 2009a). Their boundaries are presented in Figure 2-11.
21 Final Report
Figure 2-11. Map showing estimated physical aquifer boundaries (IMIP) and CONAGUA jurisdictional aquifer boundaries. Source: IMIP and CONAGUA websites.
2.4.3 Saline Intrusion in Coastal Aquifers
Aquifer overdraft and other natural processes are causing saline intrusion, particularly in Maneadero aquifer, in which average total dissolved solids (TDS) loads exceed standards for drinking water. As a result, the entire urban and rural populations rely on bottled water for human consumption that have to be purchased and additionally from CESPE’s water bill for “potable” and wastewater services. In addition, water with high salt content can degrade soils and reduce agricultural yields. Overall, this increases water treatment costs for drinking water, and reduces agricultural productivity.
2.4.4 Institutional Inefficiencies
As in many places around the globe, existing institutions and their coordination pose challenges for more efficient water management. In the Ensenada Region one of the main institutional issues is the overallocation of water use permits that are driving aquifers to depletion. Under-reporting of water use, illegal water use, poor surveillance and lack of enforcement are among other institutional deficiencies in water resources management in the Ensenada Region and elsewhere in Mexico. This issue is recognized by CONAGUA’s local, regional and central offices as well as the COTAS of Maneadero and Guadalupe.
22 Final Report
Chapter 3 Ensenada Region Political and Legal Structure: Mexico’s water governance
3.1 Legal framework
In 1992 Mexico made significant constitutional revisions that created the framework for the decentralization of water resources. The nation is deemed the owner of all hydrological resources and sublevel entities are responsible for the provision of water and sanitation services. In conjunction with the constitutional changes a new water law (LAN Ley de Aguas Nacionales) was established that provided the policy, objectives and mechanisms for the management of water resources: The following principles summarize the new approach to water resource management in Mexico (OECD 2013).
a. Water is the property of the nation: Article 27 of the Mexican constitution designates the federal government as the owner of all hydrological resources (rivers, aquifers, lakes etc…) within the nation’s boundaries. In addition the government maintains the authority to transfer water rights as water titles and thus operate as private property.
b. River basins management: Water administration authority and management is transferred and divided into 13 hydrological administrative regions called “Organismos de Cuenca” (Figure 3-3).These administrative bodies are mirrored versions of the federal CONAGUA with the same structure and function. However these bodies are not financially autonomous and thus depend on the support of the federal body.
c. Integrated water resource management: Water management planning is coordinated between different sectors, agencies and administrative units. Each sublevel is responsible for integrated planning and reports that reflect the federal government’s 2030 Water Agenda, an initiative of the federal government that includes clean water, water supply, and sustainability of water management and planning.
d. Organized participation: Within these administrative units a variety of water user stakeholders representing different sectors are organized into “Consejos de Cuenca” (Figure 3-3). Irrigation users are responsible for managing irrigation networks through water user associations (Asociaciones Civiles de Usuarios). In areas where groundwater is the primary water source citizen-based groundwater user association (Comités Técnicos de Aguas Subteráaneas-COTAS) are organized to inform water users on aquifer conditions and regulations as well as monitor groundwater levels especially in overexploited basins.
e. Federal concessions and public registry: In adherence with the LAN, the allocation of water rights is done through federally deemed concessions to private users and municipal and state entities; this also includes permits for wastewater discharge. Permits and titles are made public and thus transparent through the Public Registry of Water Rights (Registro Público de Derechos de Agua—REPDA).
f. Priorities for water provision: As part of the National Water Agenda directive of universal coverage, a priority of use ranks water use by categories to ensure human consumption has precedence over all other uses. The following lists the priority order by category: Domestic, urban, livestock, agriculture, ecological
23 Final Report
conservation (environmental use), electric energy generation for public services and industrial use
g. Water rights trading of concession titles. In areas where water resources are limited especially where new concession titles are prohibited, the transfer of water rights is made possible to maximize the economic value of the resource.
h. Municipal provision of water and sanitation services: In alignment with the decentralized structure, Article 115 of the Mexican constitution designates municipalities as the providers and managers of water and sanitation services through direct management, municipally owned companies or private providers.
i. Water use management to maintain or achieve water balance: government water management planning and actions attempts to address water sustainability through environmental regulations and permits through CONAGUA. All levels of government have a role in determining environmental standards for water use and discharge.
Figure 3-1. Watershed Organization Region 1: Baja California. Watershed Councils in the Baja California roughly follow state political boundaries, these are: 1) Baja California, and 2) Baja California Sur (not shown in map). (Source: CONAGUA 2012)
In 2004 reforms were made to the National Water Law that gave greater administrative authority
24 Final Report
and legitimacy to the regional Watershed Organizations and Watershed Councils that are part of the policy process and administration of water resources. The changes to the law were enacted to strengthen the roles and duties of sub-national agencies and to fulfill the promise of decentralized governance. For example, the Baja California Watershed Council newly appointed presidency is no longer occupied by a CONAGUA official but instead a local resident and farmer signifying a move toward greater authoritative autonomy.
3.1.1 Laws and tools for managing hydrological resources in Mexico
The 1992 new water law ushered in a suite of legal reforms that support the overarching policy objective of decentralized governance of environmental resources. CONAGUA is the federal agency with the greatest responsibility of administering and enforcing the laws related to water. Listed below are the policy tools, laws and management plans most relevant to the governance of water resources in Mexico.
3.2 Water Management Tools
There are a variety of tools for managing water resources in Mexico that can be summarized into the following five categories: Regulatory, enforcement, economic, participative and integrated (OECD 2013). ♦ Regulatory measures There are three instruments to conserve overexploited basins and
aquifers: prohibitions, reserves and regulations. Some of the more important federal regulations related to water resource management are listed below.
♦ Enforcement measures: Enforcement of water sector regulations to control and manage the
use and discharge of water resources is undertaken through field inspections, measurement of use and quality, and sanctions for misconduct is mostly undertaken by CONAGUA’s central office. However, the Watershed Organization and the local CONAGUA office may also coordinate with the central office for enforcement.
♦ Economic mechanisms: The use of economic instruments to incentivize adherence to the
established water resource policies and regulations follows the principles of “water user pays” and “polluter pays”. Some mechanisms to manage water resources include water fee collection, water rights transfers and water bank operations.
♦ Participative institutions: Participation across scales, sectors and society in the management
of water resources is an important policy tool. Participation in the planning, policy development and management takes place in a variety of contexts such as water user associations in irrigation districts, Watershed Councils (Consejos de Cuenca) and technical committees for groundwater resources (COTAS--Comités Técnicos de Aguas Subterráneas).
♦ Integrated planning: Each entity—federal, state, regional, municipal and watershed (and in
some cases urban centers) have their own hydrological planning reports that are integrated across institutional levels and agencies. Examples of some of the primary planning documents related to water resource management in the Ensenada Region are described by institutional level in following sections.
25 Final Report
3.3 Federal Laws
The following laws and bylaws are important in the administration and management of water resources in Mexico. The laws and the descriptions of the aspects of the laws that are important for water resource administration and planning are listed below.
♦ National Water Law 1992 (Ley de Aguas Nacionales). As previously discussed, the LAN is the primary law governing water resources. It establishes the institutions, policies, objectives and mechanisms for the management of water resources in Mexico. It also outlays the framework for issuing all water use titles and wastewater discharge permits through federal government concessions. In addition, the bylaws define the organizational process of establishing the roles of each governing body and the related duties: the Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAT), the National Water Commission (CONAGUA), Watershed Organizations, Watershed Council and COTAS among others.
♦ Federal Water Duties Law 2002 (Ley de Federal de Derechos en Materia de Agua) The LFD is the federal law that determines the rates for water use and water discharge and pollution fees. It also designates the institutional recipients of these payments. This law adopts the economic principles of ‘water user pays’ and ‘polluter pays’.
♦ Planning Law 1983 (Ley de Planeación) establishes the criteria for development planning among all government entities such that is a democratic, inclusive, equitable and integrated process. This relates to the regional (Watershed Organization) water plans.
♦ Federal Law of the Sea 1986 (Ley Federal del Mar) In articles 21 and 22 establishes marine life and water shall be protected from contaminant discharges. This works in conjunction with the applicable water discharge norms.
♦ Federal Law on Metrology and Standardization 1992(Ley Federal sobre Metrología y Normalización) establishes the requirements and standards for setting the Mexican norms (Mexican Official Norms or NOMs). The law covers process of certification, accreditation and verification of the Mexican Norms.
♦ General Law of National Property 2004 (Ley General de Bienes Nacionales): This law establishes the norms for the acquisition, title, administration, control, security and expropriation of property of the nation through the various executive ministries, in this case the Ministry of the Environment (SEMARNAT).
♦ General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection 1988 (Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente)(LEGEEPA) establishes the right of all people to live in an adequate environment for a healthy life and well-being. The law defines the environmental policies and principles and the instruments for its application; the preservation, restoration, and improvement of the environment and the protection of the biodiversity as well as the administration of the protected area; the sustainable use of soil and water resources and natural resources in the manner that best protects the economic activities and society.
♦ Constitutional Law of the Federal Public Administration 1976 (Ley Orgánica de la Administración Pública Federal (Artículo 32 Bis) this law establishes the role of the Environment Ministry, SEMARNAT (and other executive offices and institutions) and the duties of the agency as the overseer of all actions related to the environment including hydrological resources.
♦ Agrarian Law 1992 (Ley Agraria) establishes the structure and internal organization of the ejido; establishes and defines the categories of ownership titles. Also, covers the delimitation of land and other natural resource (includes water resources) use rights.
26 Final Report
♦ Law of Rural Sustainable Development 2001(Ley de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable) the purpose of the law is to strengthen rural employment and income, promote sustainable use of natural resources and improve the quality of life for rural communities in general.
♦ General Law of Sustainable Forest Development 2003 (La Ley General de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable) the law contributes to the social, economic, environmental development through the integrated sustainable management of forest resources, watersheds and hydrological forest ecosystems.
3.3.1 Federal Bylaws and Regulations
Federal laws in most cases have their own bylaws (Reglamentos) and norms that contain more specific information on how to meet the federal laws. Bylaws can be issued by the federal Congress. A major revision to the National Water Law bylaw is still in draft.
♦ National Water bylaws. There is a draft of the bylaws of the National Water Law. These bylaws cover CONAGUA jurisdiction, water uses, water use rights and its registry, watershed councils, participation, water planning and infrastructure investments, pollution prevention and sanctions. The regulation also refers to the corresponding Mexican norms that have performance standards.
♦ Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources bylaws. The General Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection has a handful of bylaws including environmental impact assessment, land use ordinance, hazardous materials, hazardous waste, environmental audits, air pollution prevention, air emissions reporting, among others.
♦ Law of the Sea bylaws and Regulations. Water quality regulations from the National Water Law bylaws and norms apply to inland and seawater.
♦ Forestry Law bylaws. Stipulate planning on forestry matters which relate to water management in Mexico on pay for environmental services programs.
3.4 . State Laws and Regulations
States regulate water resources usually through economic incentives via water user fees, which are typically the responsibility of state-level ministries and water commissions. Some of the responsibilities include establishing tariff rates for water and sanitation, setting the criteria for the design and construction of water infrastructure as well as the environmental and health standards. Some other examples of state level laws and regulations related to water resources and institutions are: .
♦ Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection 2001 (Ley del Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente del Estado de Baja California)
♦ Internal regulations (bylaws) of the State Water Commission of Baja California 2006 Reglamento Interno de La Comisión Estatal del Agua de Baja California),
♦ Regulatory Law for Potable Water service in the State of Baja California 1969 (Ley que Reglamenta el Servicio de Agua Potable en el Estado de Baja California)
♦ Law of Farming and Forest Promotion of the State of Baja California at the municipal level 2001 (La Ley de Fomento Agropecuario y Forestal del Estado de Baja California Ámbito Municipal)
27 Final Report
♦ Law of Sustainable Forestry for the State of Baja Californa 2010 (Ley de Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable para el Estado de Baja California).
Municipal Laws and Regulations Some of the municipal bylaws and regulations related to the organization and management of water resources that are important in the establishment of a Water Fund are:
♦ By-laws of the Sustainable Development Research and Planning Centre for the Ensenada Municiplity El Reglamento del Centro de Estudios y Planeación del Desarrollo Sustentable del Municipio de Ensenada 2003 (CEYPSE),
♦ Bylaws of the Planning Committee for Municipal Development in Ensenada. El Reglamento del Comité de Planeación para el Desarrollo Municipal de Ensenada 2004
♦ Bylaws for Public Administration in the Municipality of Ensenada. El Reglamento de la Administración Pública para el Municipio de Ensenada, Baja California 2008.
3.4.1 Mexican Norms
There are several Official Mexican Norms (Normas Oficiales Mexicanas—NOM), compulsory standards for technical and operational aspects of various sectors. The norms for water resources cover areas such as wastewater discharge standards, establishment of wells, septic systems and groundwater availability.
3.5 . Integrated water resource management plans
The decentralized governance structure of Mexico’s water resources calls for coordinated planning at each administrative level--National, regional, state, municipal, watershed and basin. The purpose of integrated planning is to improve management efficiency by standardizing the approach to water governance in order to achieve the overarching goals established by the National Water Plan: universal coverage, clean water bodies, water balance and protection from catastrophic floods.
3.5.1 Federal Management Plans
Federal management plans related to water resources lay the foundation for all the sub-national planning entities by setting the priorities and objectives for development and protection of the nation’s waters. The following section lists and describes the important planning documents for the management of water resources in Mexico. ♦ National Development Plan 2007-2012: Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2012: sets the
priority of environmental sustainability as one of the primary objectives in the management of water resources. In addition, the plan lays out the strategies to achieve its objectives such as integrated management from the perspective of the watershed, increased use of wastewater for irrigation purposes, improved diffusion of water use technology, new water infrastructure to meet growing demands. Some of the overarching development directives are equality in resource distribution and democratic representation.
♦ 2030 Water Agenda: Agenda del Agua 2030: This is the document used to establish the appropriate implementation of the sustainable water policy (referred to in the National Development Plan). This document lays out the four goals (Figure 3-2) and mechanisms to achieve a balance of water supply and demand, clean water, water services for all and safety
28 Final Report
from catastrophic floods and improvements in the technical development, administration and financial sectors of water management.
♦ The National Water Plan 2007-2012: Programa Nacional Hidrico: 2007-2012 SEMARNAT—The National Water Plan is based on the National Development Plan, National Infrastructure Plan and the Sectorial Program for the Environment and Natural Resources. The plan establishes the priorities for the water sector and the specific strategies to meet the objectives. The primary objectives are aligned with the Sectorial Program for the Environment and Natural Resources and are listed below.
♦ Sectorial Program for Environment and Natural Resources 2007-2012: Programa Sectorial de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales 2007-2012: The plan addresses the objectives set in the National Development Plan and the strategies and lines of action to achieve the objectives. Some of the objectives are to promote the integrated and sustainable management of watersheds and aquifers, improve agriculture productivity and consolidate the participation of water users and promote the culture of appropriate use.
The Region I Hydrological-Administrative unit is a subsidiary to the Federal water resource authority CONAGUA. Planning documents take a regional approach to water management goals and objectives that are in alignment with the National water plans. The following section gives an overview of the plans’ central themes for water resource management and the related forestry management at the regional scale. ♦ Regional Water Plan 2002-2006 Programa Hidráulico Regional 2002-2006 Región I
Península de Baja California: This plan much like the other sub-national plans is an integrated document that is in accordance with the National Plan objectives through a variety of legal, financial and participatory mechanisms. The primary objectives outlined in this plan are to promote water efficiency, extend water services, achieve sustainable and integrated management in aquifers and river basins, strengthen social participation and promote a culture of appropriate use among others.
Figure 3-2. The 2030 Water Agenda Goals and Timeline (Source: OECD 2013)
29 Final Report
Baja California Hydrological-Administrative Region 1 Water Management Plans
♦ 2030 Vision Water Program by Watershed Organization of the Baja California Peninsula: Programa Hídrico por Organismo de Cuenca, Península de Baja California Visión 2030. The regional plan for the Baja California administrative unit aligns its vision and objectives with the National Water Agenda 2030 four goals, the National Water Plan primary objectives and the National Development Plan 2007-2012 axis and objectives. Some of the objectives addressed are to achieve balance in the region’s river basins and aquifers, improve water quality (includes marine) and restore watershed ecosystems, secure universal access to water services especially the disadvantaged communities, protection from extreme events from climate change effects and improve overall management of water resources.
♦ Regional Forest and Hydrology Plan for Region 1-Baja California Peninsula (2007) Programa Regional Hidrológico Forestal Para La Región I - Península De Baja California Fondo Sectorial Conafor- Conacyt (2007)—This plan integrates the National Development Plan (2001-06), the National Forestry Plan (2001-06), The Forest Strategy Plan (2025) and the National Plan for the Environment and Natural Resources (2001-2006) and covers the objectives, methods and strategies of the forest management for the region in order to restore forest cover. It also explains the delimitation of the seven Regiones Hidrologicas of Region 1-Baja California Peninsula, the connection of forests with water resources, the benefits of forest restoration on the ecosystem and financial sources for implementation of the plan. In summary the plans’ objectives are to identify priority areas for reforestation and conservation via payment for environmental services and direct management.
Baja California State Water Management Plans
Water resource management plans at the state level generally encompass development of water resources to meet supply demands and sanitation needs. Sustainability of water resources management is a central theme in the state plans to meet environmental protection objectives. These plans have a five-year planning horizon with new plans in the works for 2014.
♦ State of Baja California Water Program 2008-2013: Programa Estatal Hidrico: Estado de Baja California 2008-2013: The plan establishes the policies and strategies to manage water resources in the state of Baja California in concordance with the National Plans (described above). Some objectives of the plan are to strengthen the instruments of evaluation and control to the coordinating agencies and the executive agencies and to plan and schedule water sector projects according to the priorities and available resources.
♦ State of Baja California Development Plan 2008-2013: Plan Estatal de Desarrollo de Baja California 2008-2013: The plan describes the water challenges for development and the objectives and strategies to make improvements. Addressing water scarcity and increasing water service coverage are priorities for the water sector. This includes fostering and educating for an environmentally conscious culture. In the sustainable development section of the plan that addresses the water sector, eight objectives and the respective strategies are laid out for meeting growing demands while at the same time augmenting supply to achieve the water system balance. Improvements in water conveyance to reduce leaks, desalination, wastewater reuse and improvements in water administration through increased integration and participation.
♦ State of Baja California Environmental Protection Program 2009-2013 Programa Estatal de Protección al Ambiente de Baja California 2009-2013: The
30 Final Report
plan is in accordance with the Ministry of Environment and State Sustainable Development goals and objectives to promote the best use and to protection of environmental resources of natural resources for now and future generations. The plan is an accompaniment to the State Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection Law. The plan lays out the states environmental issues and the strategies to resolve them.
Ensenada Region Integrated Water Management Plans
♦ The basin-scale integrated management plans’ primary objectives are to evaluate current conditions of the related aquifer systems and to develop scenarios to address over-exploitation and achieve sustainable use. These plans are critical for any future investigations, planning and implementation of Water Fund. A variety of institutions collaborate to develop these plans such as COTAS, State Ministry of Farming Promotion (SEFOA--Secretaria de Fomento de Agropecuario, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fish and Food (SAGARPA-- Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural,Pesca y Alimentación), Center for Rural Development Assistance (CADER--Centros de Apoyo para el Desarrollo Rural, State Water Commission of Public Services for Ensenada (CESPE--Comision Estatal de Servicios Publicos de Ensenada), Municipal Planning and Investigation Institute (IMIP de Ensenada--Instituto Municipal de Investigacion y Planeacion), Organismos de Cuenca de Baja California--Watershed Organization of Baja California, CONAGUA and academics. Listed below are the integrated water management plans for the Ensenada Region:
♦ Programa Integral del Agua Ensenada 2008 (PIAE) ♦ Programa Integral Del Agua Del Municipio De Ensenada, B.C. 2010 (PIAME) ♦ Plan De Manejo Integrado De Las Aguas Subterráneas En El Acuífero De Guadalupe, Estado
De Baja California 2007 ♦ Plan de Manejo Integrado Del Agua En el Acuifero De Maneadero, Estado De Baja
California ♦ Plan de Manejo Integrado Del Agua En el Acuifero De La Mision, Estado De Baja California
(in process)
3.6 . Institutional Stakeholders of Water Resource Management
There are a number of agencies that coordinate in the management of water resources in Mexico either directly (e.g. administration of titles, collection of fees, enforcement) or indirectly (e.g. environmental regulations, land use planning, transnational agreements) (Figure 3-3) maps the decentralized structure and coordination pathways across institutional scales and entities. CONAGUA is the ultimate administrative authority; however in 2004 the National Water Law included significant changes for river basin management to fulfill the operative of decentralized governance. The law gave the 13 hydrological administrative units represented by the Watershed Councils, greater authority and autonomy with technical, legal and administrative prerogatives as acting CONAGUA implementing agencies. Additionally, the Watershed Councils (Consejos de Cuenca) retained their role as water managers at the river basin level under federal authority. Watershed Councils were to continue to serve as intermediaries between water users and government entities and council assemblies were the venue to receive water user opinions and concerns.
31 Final Report
Figure 3-3. Institutional Stakeholders of Water Resources Management (Source: OECD 2013)
Listed below are the primary federal, regional, states and municipal government agencies as well as other decentralized entities responsible for water resources management:
3.6.1 Federal: Primary agencies—ad ministration, policy design and implementation
♦ CONAGUA (CONAGUA--Comisión Nacional del Agua) is the decentralized federal agency of SEMARNAT (see below) with the primary role to uphold the National Water Law (LAN--Ley de Aguas Nacionaesl) through the development of the national water policy and planning. CONAGUA is administrative authority and thus dictates operatives to the sub-level state, regional and municipal entities. All financial resources are administered by CONAGUA including all water use and discharge duty payments as well as all the investments in the water sector from external sources (e.g. World Bank loans). CONAGUA oversees the administration of titles for all water use and discharge; irrigation works and drainage systems development; management of emergency and natural disasters. Enforcement of the water law is another obligation of CONAGUA. Inspections and measurements of water use to ensure compliance with the law and regulations is a critical function of the federal water agency o achieve its mandate of water resource sustainability. CONAGUA has a central office in Mexico City, 13 regional offices known as the Watershed Organizations (Organismos de Cuenca) that correspond to the hydrologic-administrative regions and 20 local offices in the state that do not have Watershed Organization office
32 Final Report
♦ The Ministry the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT-Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) creates and conducts national policies for natural resources that are not the domain of a single agency and coordinates across agencies to develop policies that range from ecology, environmental sanitation, water, environmental regulation, of urban development and fisheries. In conjunction with CONAGUA it establishes the standards (Mexican Official Norms or NOM) for wastewater discharges, and oversees enforcement along with other institutions, state and municipal authorities. It operates with the Ministry of Finance to designate criteria for the allocation of resources and incentives for sustainable use of natural resources. It can issue contracts and concessions, licenses, permits, authorizations that are related to water.
3.6.2 Water resource financing and planning agencies
♦ The Federal Congress (Congreso Federal) establishes the policies, reviews and approves the water sector budget. Amendments and regulations to the National Water Law and the National Duties Law are also under the same approval process.
♦ The Ministry of Finance (SHCP – Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público) designates the allocation of budgets for the water sector and coordinates with other institutions on a variety of financing issues namely the authorization and scheduling of long term investment programs and provides funding for water supply and sanitation services
♦ The National Infrastructure Fund (FONADIN – Fondo Nacional de Infraestructura) is the coordinating body for the funding and development of infrastructure for water sector and various others. It finances the planning, design and construction of water and sanitation projects.
♦ The Federal Electricity Commission (CFE – Comisión Federal de Electricidad) is responsible for the financing, construction and operation of dams used for water supply, flood protection, irrigation and electricity generation. The commission also provides the subsidy for rural and agriculture users.
3.6.3 Social, natural resource and environmental agencies
In addition to CONAGUA, other agencies participate to a less in water management in Mexico, in areas such as irrigation efficiency, water quality and sanitation, rural development, research, forestry, environmental enforcement and indigenous communities’ protection. A brief description of a selection of agencies and their role is provided below. ♦ The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food
(SAGARPA – Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación) is responsible for water use efficiency and productivity in agriculture. Since agriculture is the largest water user, the ministry develops and funds programs to educate and support sustainable use of soil and water resources in agriculture activities.
♦ The Ministry of Health (SALUD – Secretaría de Salud) develops standards for domestic water supply and maintains records of water quality reports.
♦ The Ministry of Social Development (SEDESOL – Secretaría de Desarrollo Social) provides financial assistance to rural areas in the development of water supply, sewerage and sanitation infrastructure.
♦ The Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA – Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua) – is a subsidiary of SEMARNAT and is responsible for developing knowledge, technology and innovation in relation to the sustainable use of water resources.
33 Final Report
♦ The National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR – Comisión Nacional Forestal) promotes the appropriate management of forests for social, economic and environmental benefits. This includes funding and taking on efforts to reduce soil erosion in upper watersheds.
♦ The Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA –Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente) oversees and conducts environmental assessments and monitors the water quality of rivers, lakes and groundwater. The agency is also responsible for applying sanctions to violations of environmental regulations.
♦ The National Commission for the Development of Indigenous Peoples (CDI –Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas) is the funding agency for programs that provide basic services (water services, electricity and roads) to areas with marginalized indigenous populations greater than 40% and have a population of 15,000-50,000.
State, municipal, and other entities responsible for managing water resources
Although the structure of water resources management in Mexico has undergone the process of decentralization, the federal government retains significant control over the administration of water services. However, according to the constitution, municipalities are the primary authority for domestic residential water supply and sanitation. The state and municipal agencies as well as other entities have an important roles in managing water resources are listed below: Water supply and sanitation: State and Municipal governments
♦ State governments—are responsible for the planning, regulating and development of infrastructure for water resources and in some cases providing water and sanitation services. State Congresses or in some cases, state water commissions (comisiones estatales de agua) are the authority for setting the rates for water and sanitation providers. State water commissions are intermediaries between municipalities and the federal government to improve water management and water service provision. State governments can devise development plans through state-level planning and ministries. Comision Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Ensenada (CESPE) is the State water commission for the Ensenada Region and is the provider of water and sanitation services.
♦ Municipal governments and water and sanitation providers—Water provision and sanitation services are the responsibility of municipalities. Service can be provided directly by the municipality either through municipal providers or separate entities owned exclusively by the municipality. In some cases, services are provided through private operators through concession contracts or state government utilities. As stated above, CESPE is the service provider for most urban water uses in the Ensenada Region.
Support association
♦ The National Association of Water and Sanitation Companies (ANEAS)—Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Agua y Saneamiento de México)—is a support association for water and sanitation providers throughout Mexico. They provide assistance to improve efficiency of water service provision, and administration professionalism and autonomy.
Decentralized entities
♦ Watershed Organizations (Organismos de Cuenca)— these are decentralized bodies of CONAGUA and operate as administrative and technical representatives of the federal agency. The organizations are responsible for developing regional water policy, manage, build, operate and maintain federal water works in the respective hydrologic region either
34 Final Report
directly or through third parties. Watershed Organizations are also supports for concessions and contracts and regulate federal water infrastructure. They can establish irrigation districts, and oversee the quality of water and watersheds. Organismo de Cuenca de Baja California is the Watershed Organization for the Ensenada Region and is located in Mexicali, B.C.
♦ Watershed Councils (Consejos de Cuenca)—are civilian based participatory associations made up of representatives of different sectors of which there can be one or more councils within a single Hydrological-Administrative region (for example there are three for Region 1. The councils participate in the local region integrated planning to promote the diverse issues such as social welfare, economic development and environmental services. Currently, the Watershed Councils are mostly advisory bodies with little impact on policy making. However, greater authority is being sought by some councils to bridge the gap between policy and implementation. Consejos de Cuenca de Baja California is the council for the Ensenada Region.
♦ Technical committees for groundwater (COTAS—Comités Técnicos de Aguas Subterráneas)—provide technical, informational and document support to water users in watersheds especially with over-exploited aquifers. These associations also monitor groundwater levels to have a record of status and trends of groundwater conditions. Currently there are 82 COTAS throughout Mexico. Participation in policy planning and programs in aquifer management is another aim of the associations. COTAS Guadalupe, Maneadero, Ojos Negros are the local associations in the Ensenada Region.
3.7 Environmental programs and conservation tools
Ensenada Region protected sites are outside the study area yet may have some significance for future assessments.
RAMSAR site
• Estero de Punta Banda: designated a RAMSAR site in 2006: Unfortunately, there is a gap in the management of the wetland conservation area and its protected status.
Protected Natural Areas (Areas Naturales Protegidas)
The following areas are included in CONAFOR national program Forest Management Units (UMAFOR--Unidades de Manejo Forestal for Baja California:
• Sierra de San Pedro Martir Forest Reserve • Sierra Juarez Forest Reserve and National Park (Parque Nacional Constitucion de 1857)
has hydrological importance for recharge of the Guadalupe Valley groundwater system via Ojos Negros and Real Castillo groundwater basins and thus must be considered for future assessments for establishment of an Ensenada Region Water Fund.
• Southern Desert Region—Desierto Sur
3.8 . Legislative tools to conserve natural areas in Mexico
♦ Federal and State decrees can define parks and natural areas—However, complex land ownership and lack of understanding can hamper conservation efforts. Incentives to private owners, such as through payments for environmental services, is needed to improve success.
♦ Development Planning: Urban, state, regional development plans can establish strategies, actions and mechanisms to achieve sustainable development. However due to the short term of elected officials advances in achieving planning goals are often stymied.
35 Final Report
♦ Ecological conservation reports: Planes de Ordenamiento Ecological Territorial are developed to identify and evaluate current land-use that includes economic and ecological components. These reports are mostly used as guides for future planning considerations in order to protect natural resources. However, these evaluations do not hold any enforceable restrictions and thus cannot curtail development of conservation areas. The report for Baja California is: Programa de Ordenamiento Ecológico del Estado de Baja California. The report for Guadalupe Valley is: El Programa de Ordenamiento Ecológico del Corredor San Antonio de las Minas-Valle de Guadalupe, and the report for the coastal corridor between Tijuana and Ensenada (this includes La Mision) is: Turístico y Ecológico del Corredor Costero Tijuana-Rosarito-Ensenada.
♦ State and Municipal declarations of conservation areas: These declarations (declaratorias) are another avenue for conserving woodland areas. However, due to the limited capacity of the public sector entities to enforce land use restrictions these declaratorias have been ineffective in achieving the conservation goals (White et al., 2006).
Conservation areas on private lands
Protection of natural areas has been problematic due to the limited capacity to enact and enforce conservation initiatives. In addition, the vast majority of undeveloped land is privately owned either by local ejidos, comunidades indigenas, pequeñas propiedades, or títulos colonias. The Mexican government can establish protected areas on private lands with land use restrictions without compensation however there is limited funding to ensure protection of these areas. The myriad of land ownership systems, insufficient incentives, and education limits challenges efforts to establish mechanisms for conservation on private land. NGO’s, such as Pronatura, Terra Peninsular, Wild Coast, indigenous groups and individuals have proposed changes to land use rights to improve opportunities for conservation on privately held land. Despite these challenges, there are programs in operation that have shown some success. Some of the mechanisms for conservation include: donation or purchase, reassessment, bequest, parques privados (private parks), usufructo (right of use), fideicomiso (property trust) and servidumbre (easement) (White et al., 2006).
3.9 Examples of conservation through economic incentives
Economic incentives are part of a neoliberal approach to manage environmental resources that coax private owners or users to employ best use practices. Payment of environmental services (PES) compensates land and other resource owners or operators for conservation, restoration and other sustainable use practices in areas threatened by environmental deterioration. Payment for watershed services programs typically occur in forested zones where deforestation is causing sedimentation of water bodies and negatively impacting the overall ecosystem. Mexico has embraced PES for forest conservation in the Federal program Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrologicos (PSAH) as a way to achieve clean water bodies; one of the primary National Water Agenda objectives. A program like PSAH can be employed to land conservation practices in the Sierra de Juarez, that actually provide recharge via runoff to the Ensenada Region aquifer system.
3.9.1 Payment for Hydrological Services (PSAH) program
Payment for Hydrological Services (PSAH--Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos) is a program sponsored and funded by the Mexican Forestry Commission (CONAFOR—Comisión Nacional Forestal), CONAGUA and the National Ecological Institute (INE—Insitituto Nacional de Ecología). PSAH offers compensation (via water user fees) to private landowners for
36 Final Report
conservation on areas of optimal aquifer recharge. Most of the conservation initiatives occur in forested areas at risk of deforestation and aquifer over-exploitation. Improvements in forest cover can enhance rainwater infiltration and increase groundwater levels. PSAH is the most successful payment for environmental services program in Latin America enrolling 1.5 million ha into conservation. Most of these programs can be found in four states: Chihuahua and Durango, Oaxaca and Chiapas (Porras and Neves, 2008). A comprehensive assessments of the program are presented in Muñoz-Piña et al. (2008). However, estimation of net aquifer recharge gains from conservation activities must be examined in depth. There are cases in which reforestation of some areas results in decreased water tables (Hammersmark et al., 2010; Hammersmark et al., 2008). Figure 3-4 below shows the land use in priority areas of CONAFOR for payment for environmental services in 2010. Likewise, Table 3-1 below lists priority areas in Baja California with restoration needs by land use type following CONAFOR hydrological and forest regional plan (CONAFOR 2007).
Figure 3-4. Ecosystem services and protected areas. Source: CONAFOR prioritary areas
37 Final Report
Some organizations in Baja California and elsewhere around the country and Baja California participate in programs that involve stakeholders, government agencies and existing compensation schemes. These include Terra Peninsular, Pronatura, WWF and The Sonoran Desert.
Table 3-1. Restoration needs by land use type in protected areas (adapted from CONAFOR 2007)
3.9.2 Programa de Cuencas y Ciudades (Cities and Watershed Program)
El Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza A.C is a non-profit organization founded in 2003 that supports the enhancement of aquifer recharge in upper watersheds that serve as a water source for the local municipalities. The program objectives are to 1) foster integrated management via education; 2) collaboration among stakeholders; 3) establish financial mechanisms to fund conservation and compensation to watershed service participants and 4) to carry out operatives to improve aquifer recharge capacity and livelihood enhancement of the local watershed communities. The Cuencas y Ciudades program is one of the initiatives championed by the FMCN with donations from the Fundacion Gonzalo Rio Arronte, Fundacion FEMSA and Fondo para Areas Naturales Protegidas (FANP) with planned operation from 2008-2014, yet the program started in 2001 with seed funds from the William and Flora Hewlett foundation. Due to the success of the program, funding is being sought for six new additional sites (FMCN 2013).
3.10 Summary and Conclusions
The legal structure of water management in Mexico is strongly federal. Overarching policy is set by the National Water Law. Its bylaws and norms support the main law. In the law and its modification, 13 river organizations work as a mirror of the central CONAGUA office. The Ensenada Region is within the River Basin I, Peninsula de Baja California, with headquarters in Mexicali. CONAGUA regulates water use rights, water quality and water management and planning. It also collects water sales revenues and other fees. These monies go to Mexico’s Treasure department. Water expense budget is funded from tax revenues, oil sales revenues and general funds returning revenues collected by CONAGUA. However, water sector budget is heavily subsidized and often programs are not tied to revenues collected.
Prioritary Area Forest Shrubs Pasture Chaparral Galery Vegetation
No Vegetation
Irrigated Agriculture
Rainfed Agriculture
Total
Sierra de Juarez 11,064 208 181 54,486 41 - 57 15 66,053 Sand Maria-El Descanso 91 1,132 293 5,594 33 - 38 293 7,474 Delta del Rio Colorado - 306 - - - 128 - - 434 Punta Banda-Erendira 33 - - 7,535 17 - 49 43 7,677 Sierra de San Pedro Martir 6,400 - - 30,535 24 - - - 36,959 San Telmo-San Quintin - - - 3,442 149 - 484 632 4,707 Valle de los Cirios - 996 - 127 10 - - - 1,133 Sierra La Libertad-Asamblea 28 680 - 1,198 187 - - - 2,092 Total Baja California (Ha) 17,616 3,322 474 102,916 462 128 628 983 126,529
38 Final Report
Water planning and infrastructure financing are a rather centralized process. The Watershed Organizations and the Watershed Councils have little influence on the planning process and do not have a direct connection to the revenues generated in the basin, from water use and other fees. Human water uses are governed at the state level through the state commissions; and at the municipal level through the local water utilities, which report in most cases to the state commissions. In many cases, local utilities operate with financial losses and a fair amount of leverage is needed from the federal government to finance infrastructure, through various match-fund or conditional-funding programs from CONAGUA. The state legislature and executive determine water rates for users, and the National Duties Law determines fees paid from estates, industry and individual users to CONAGUA. In practice, well-orchestrated, financially self-sufficient and decentralized planning and operation are uncommon for Mexico, Baja California and the Ensenada Region. Yet the legal framework exists and the financial openness in the systems are in place albeit not mature enough.
39 Final Report
Chapter 4 Economic Context for Water Resource Management in the Study Area
4.1 Introduction: Economic Background
This chapter provides an economic overview for the study region based on information in the State and Federal Statistics, planning documents and previous studies as well as interviews to officials in government agencies and other entities. As part of a pre-feasibility assessment, this economic context analysis is non-exhaustive and is intended to provide a big picture of economic activity, available water policy instruments, and water programs as related to a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region. Baja California in general faces better economic conditions than the rest of the country. In 2005 the Ensenada municipality population was about 413,000 habitants and more than 298,000 in the area of study. By year 2030, more than 670,000 people will reside in the Ensenada municipality, and 477,000 in an area comprised by Ensenada, Maneadero, El Sauzal, La Mision, El Porvenir, Francisco Zarco, San Antonio de Las Minas and other small communities in the Guadalupe Valley (IMIP 2010). The population density in Ensenada, El Sauzal and Maneadero altogether is about 70.2 hab /km2, other areas in the municipality of Ensenada (the largest of Baja California) have amongst the lowest population densities in the state. The average for the state population density in 2010 was 44.15 hab/km2. Native population in the Ensenada planning region is about 34,000 from a total population of 466,000 in 2010. There is no native area zone classification in the study area. Employed and self-employed population based on the 2005 mid-term census is about 34% of the population. The minimum wage for the region was $50.6 MXP per day in 2007. Marginalization index is relatively low as the nine indicators are higher than the rest of the country indicating the region is better off. Most of population has access to education, healthcare and basic services. The municipality of Ensenada has a marginalization index of -1.6 (considered very low and therefore good) and is in place 2346, out of 2454 places for marginalization where the higher the number in the rank indicates a better off place. The index of human development for the municipality is 0.80. Income inequality is among the lowest in the country as well. According to the water statistics from CONAGUA (2011), the Baja California state has 2.9%, of Mexico’s population, provides 2.8% of the GDP and has a mean natural availability of water of 1,234 m3 per capita per year (OECD 2010). Availability per person is lower than the national average of 4,263 m3 per capita per year. Economic activity in the Ensenada Region includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry, mining, tourism, industry commerce and communications. Depending on the year, the Ensenada municipality may generate between 6 and 8% of the Baja California State’s GDP. Estimates from IMIP (2010) indicate a GDP of $14 billion MXP in 2009 for the Ensenada municipality. A breakdown by 2-digit NAICS sector for the municipality in 2009 is given in Table 4-1. Agriculture in the Ensenada municipality consists of 59,000 hectares (ha) of which about 14,800 are irrigated and generates more than 60% of the agricultural value in the state of $9.1 billion MXP. SAGARPA and the State Agricultural Secretariat estimate 2010 value of production for the Ensenada Region (including Valle de Guadalupe, Maneadero, Ojos Negros, San Quintin and El
40 Final Report
Rosario) of 5.5 billion MXP in total value of agricultural production. An estimate for the Guadalupe Valley, Maneadero and La Mision for 2010 was 14,900 ha and $5.32 billion MXP in agricultural production value. Table 4-1. Economic sector employment and gross domestic product (GDP) in the Ensenada municipality in 2009. Source, adapted from INEGI (INEGI 2009).
Economic Sector Employment
GDP ($1000 MXP of 2003)
11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 2,728 613 21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 486 104 22 Utilities 595 358 23 Construction 2,077 747 31-33 Manufacturing 20,839 5,300 43 Wholesale 3,779 1,378 44 Retail 21,457 2,047 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 2,315 788 51 Information 466 183 52 Financial Services and Insurance 497 61 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,291 230 54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,992 247 56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 1,904 211 61 Education Services 2,555 214 52 Health Care and Social Assistance 2,878 185 71 Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 649 92 72 Accommodation and Food Services 7,916 933 81 All Other Services Except Public Administration 5,000 316 79,424 14,006
The Hydraulic Regional Water Plan 2030 for the Baja California Peninsula includes a metric for water productivity by using the gross domestic product and water use by primary, secondary and tertiary sectors. For all three sectors the average GDP per unit use of water is $91 MXP per cubic meter at constant 2003 MXP (Table 4-2). In the Baja California Peninsula watershed as in many other regions of the world, the primary sector which includes agriculture, mining, forestry and farming uses the largest amount of water and generates less than 4% of the region’s GDP. Manufacturing and services (secondary and tertiary sectors) generate more than 96% of the GDP using only 10% of all water use in economic sectors. 2 Gross domestic product in Table 4-1 above can be defined as the difference between sector value of production at the farm gate and non-labor business expenses.
41 Final Report
Table 4-2. Water productivity by large sector after CONAGUA (2009b)
Sector GDP (Million $2003) Water Used (Mm3/yr) GDP/water use ($/m3) Primary 10,584 2,892 3.7 Secondary 82,263 290 283.9 Tertiary 200,287 43.6 4,593.7 Total 293,135 3,277 90.8 The IMIP estimates (2010) provides a breakdown of the relative share of the economic sectors by NAICS 2-digit division on the GDP from 2003-2009 which averages $14.1 billion MXP (2003) for the Ensenada municipality (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4-1. Estimated share of the gross domestic products by sector (Adapted from IMIP 2010).
However, the largest consumer of water in urban uses remains residential use with an average of 14.8 Mm3/yr (2007-2009, IMIP 2010). CESPE’s revenues for water sales totaled about $270 million pesos in 2009, from these the largest proportion (51%) came from sales to residential customers, followed by commerce and tourism 21.5%, government and industry 12.9%.
4.2 Legal context of water financing in Mexico
Federal laws that guide water resources management and finance in Mexico are the National Water Law and the Federal Duties Law (Ley Federal de Derechos). The former is the overarching law that establishes principles of managing water in Mexico and establishes that any water user requires a concession either for use or discharge. The Federal Duties Law (FDL) establishes water use fees and availability zones at the municipality level. The FDL also establishes fees for discharge and pollution and how these fees are managed. Economic provisions of the aforementioned laws include fee collection, transferability of water use rights and operation of water banks. Federal agencies with primary responsibilities in addition to CONAGUA include:
42 Final Report
a) Secretaria de Hacienda y Credito Publico (SHCP, Ministry of Finance and Public Credit), which defines budgets and coordinates institutions for scheduling for expenditures and investments in the water sector;
b) Congress, which sets and approves budgets; c) FONADIN, which coordinates funding for infrastructure including the water sector; d) PROFEPA applies sanctions as established by the FDL for violation of environmental
regulations; e) SEDESOL supports rural communities for provision of water supply and sanitation; f) SAGARPA which promotes efficiency in water use programs; g) Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) that builds and operates hydropower dams; h) National Forestry Commission funds and undertakes soil protection programs in
upstream areas of a basin. State laws have a primary role in economic regulation of water as state executive has ministries to manage water and water commission. The State congresses determine fees to be charged for water use and sanitation and design criteria for infrastructure, design and construction and environmental and health standards for water infrastructure. The water fees are published on the last day of each year in the State Gazette as a part of the State Income Law of the following year. Tariffs are monthly-adjusted for inflation. State governments delegate authority to state water commissions. Municipal governments are responsible for water supply and sanitation services. In Baja California and the Ensenada Region these would be the Comisión Estatal del Agua (CEA) and the Comisión Estatal de Servicios Públicos de Ensenada (CESPE), respectively. Other entities include the ANEAS, the Water Councils (Consejos de Cuenca), local commissions and the technical committees for groundwater or COTAS. ANEAS is an association for water and sanitation providers and aims to increase water service provision, professionalization and autonomy. The Watershed Councils participate in integrated management of river basins and aquifers to promote social welfare, economic development and environmental preservation (OECD 2010). The COTAS provide technical assistance to groundwater users and participate in developing policy and programs. The National Water Law in its 2004 reform mandates creation of a water financing system (WFS) to support integrated water resources management (OECD 2013). The WFS is intended to determine financial sources, financing mechanisms, criteria for spending, recovery of financial resources, accountability, management indicators and outcome of the application of financial resources and instruments. The lack of substantial progress on the establishment of the WFS is due to several challenges, including National Water Law bylaws that is currently in draft form and that defines the WFS itself and the tools to operate it. An additional challenge is that in practice, the Watershed Organizations have limited participation and coordination in the regional planning efforts and do not lead the implementation of the plans. The Watershed Organization also lack of financial autonomy decision power on the federally-assigned water sector budget to CONAGUA central office redistributed to their region.
4.3 Water resources financing in Mexico
Funding of the water sector in Mexico involves multiple sources. Figure 4-2 shows key financial flows showing relationship between users, taxpayer monies, and the three levels of government, agencies and programs. The main three sources for financing water resources in Mexico are:
43 Final Report
general government revenues (tax money), oil revenues, and loans. User fees total 45% of the water sector budget. It has been argued (OECD 2010) that Mexico has not exploited its potential on finance water infrastructure projects from using a relatively well-established market for bonds. No comprehensive budget for the water sector exists since CONAGUA 2012 estimated $90 billion budget excludes cross funding from other agencies and programs and expenditure from locally managed water supply and sanitation systems. About 70% of the budget is spent in water supply and sanitation, while irrigation uses 12% and integrated water resource management (IWRM) 15%. In Mexico costs of water resources management investments rely on the federal government with 40% of the total expenditures with states providing other 15%. Only 45% of the budget for the water sector is raised through water fees paid following the NDL. These subsidies through CONAGUA to state and municipal utilities supplement financial resources. Private sector participation is mostly for wastewater plants in the country, an recently for desalination plants.
Figure 4-2. Key financial flows in Mexico's water sector (Source: OECD 2013).
The CONAGUA spends 18% of its nearly $39 billion budget on administration, 43% on infrastructure and 38% transferring money to water programs some of them with rules of operation (funding is conditional on performance). This last proportion can be subsidies for operation and infrastructure in local utilities. About $10 billion MXP per year are collected by CONAGUA from users. Of these $8 billion are from water extraction charges, and $2 billion are from bulk water sales to utilities. However, these revenues go to the general funds via the treasury (SHCP) and CONAGUA has very limited control over these. On the other hand, financing the infrastructure and policy objectives detailed in the planning documents provide the estimates of the resources needed. However, identifying sources of funds usually lacking. Thus not enough integration exists in revenue raising and spending planning. This creates opportunities for decreasing costs and increasing efficiency in public spending. Conditional transfers are helping modify behavior of water program beneficiaries such as the Drinking Water and Sanitation Program for Urban Areas (APAZU) and
44 Final Report
Program for Rehabilitation and Modernization of Irrigation Districts (PROSSAPYS). So even when water-related taxes and fees and expenditures are well established by income regulations, no financial strategic planning to implement the strategic plans exist.
4.3.1 Water Plans for the Baja California Peninsula River Basin
The 2030 Water Agenda recognizes financial sustainability and economic instruments to achieve it. However, it does not explore its potential in depth (OECD 2013). The Agenda draws a connection between water policy and programs with financial planning. The Agenda includes expenses in the water sector of up to $1 trillion MXP in the next 20 years. Important gaps exist in financing infrastructural projects, for example from 2007-2010 this gap was of $14 billion MXP. Another gap exists in balancing supply and demand. The 2030 Water Agenda considers that 82% of the gap will be closed by water demand reductions and 18% by water supply augmentation. The Hydraulic Regional Plan for the Baja California Peninsula states claims cumulative investments of about $1.04 billion for the Ensenada Region alone from now until year 2030 yielding additional 44.6 Mm3/yr to reduce pressure of current overallocation in the four aquifers exceeding 40 Mm3/yr. These investments include the agriculture sector, urban domestic uses, industrial sector and infrastructure. Investments are based on four main objectives in conformance with the national hydraulic plan 2030 which are: balance of supply and demand, surface water quality protection, full water supply and sanitation coverage, and flood protection. Infrastructure projects consider water conservation, system losses reductions, water reuse and recycling, artificial recharge, desalination, and using the Colorado River water allocation for Ensenada via a new aqueduct.
Desalination plant Ensenada A 250 l/s capacity desalination plant has been considered as an alternative for water supply for the city of Ensenada according to the State Hydraulic Plan 2008-2013. The Comision Estatal del Agua (CEA) has on many occasions argued in favor of a desalination plant that would increase the water quality of the potable water distributed to the city and cause a decrease in water extraction for the current aquifers (Figure 4-3)
45 Final Report
Figure 4-3. Water demand projections to 2030 according to CEA.
Recently, the company “Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V. a subsidiary of the Spanish company INIMA won the contract for its construction. After much deliberation and opposition from local environmental groups, the location for the desalination plant was authorized at Avenida Pedro Loyola, a site very close to the micro mangrove called “La Lagunita” (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4. Location of the 250 l/s projected desalination plant at Avenida Pedro Loyola (from Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V., 2012).
46 Final Report
The proposed infrastructure will consist of a direct oceanic seawater inlet, holding tanks, pretreatment with sand filtration, RO membranes, post-treatment (remineralization), regulation tanks and distribution through 3 tanks namely El Gallo, Marquez de Leon and Revolucion. According to Aguas de Ensenada S. A de C. V. the total cost of the desalination plant will be $516,825,554 pesos, 33% will be obtained by the federal government through the National Fund for Infrastructure (Fondo Nacional de Infraestructura – FONADIN) and 67% will be covered by the company. The water tariff will be $10.651 pesos per cubic meter (2011 prices) and the period of maintenance and operation will be 20 years. In order to protect La Lagunita and in compliance with the Environmental Impact Manifest (Manifiesto de Impacto Ambiental-MIA) needed for the authorization of the construction, Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V. is considering to build the required infrastructure for the conservation of the Lagunita by means of channels to collect rain water and boardwalks for bird sightseeing (Figure 4-5).
Figure 4-5. Environmental protection infrastructure suggested by Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V. for the protection of La Lagunita (from Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V. 2012).
Aqueduct El Hongo – Ensenada Ensenada has a water allocation from the Río Colorado-Tijuana aqueduct of 230 l/s, an equivalent to approximately 7 Mm3/y. However, the required infrastructure for this water allocation has never been built, so the water is instead sent to Tijuana-Rosarito where it is used entirely. The state’s Secretary for Economic Development (Secretaria de Desarrollo Económico) has conducted calculations about the costs for building an aqueduct from nearby Tecate called El Hongo to the Guadalupe valley (Figure 4-6).
47 Final Report
Figure 4-6. Proposed aqueduct El Hongo-Guadalupe valley for supplying water to the city of Ensenada.
The cost has been calculated in 1,108 million pesos (approximately 88.6 million US dollars) and its capacity would be 500 l/s equivalent to 15.8 Mm3/y. Once approved, its construction would be done in two years. The main beneficiary would be the Guadalupe aquifer as 6 Mm3/y of water would not be extracted and 3 Mm3/y would be used for recharging the Emilio Lopez Zamora dam in Ensenada. The project includes the construction of a new regulation dam at Guadalupe valley. CONAGUA has validated the use of $780 million pesos for the construction provided that other financial sources are obtained. The main components of the project are:
• 52.4 kms of steel pipe, 24” diameter. • 3.36 Mm3 dam at Guadalupe valley. • Two-stage potabilization plant
o kms of PVC pipe, 30” diameter. • 192,000 habitants, population benefited. • Planning horizon 2030 • 9.0 Mm3 water rights authorized. • 8.4 Mm3 water rights seeking authorization. • Required investment Dec. 2011: $ 1,100 million pesos.
48 Final Report
Reclaimed water reuse (from Mendoza-Espinosa and Daesslé-Heuser, 2012). The city of Ensenada has five wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), providing treatment to approximately 600 l/s of wastewater. The main WWTP is called El Naranjo and has a treatment capacity of 500 l/s. It is located approximately 13 km) north of the Maneadero aquifer. A pipeline was built in 2008 connecting El Naranjo with a holding tank of 2,000 m3 at a cost of $4.8 million U.S. dollars. The reclaimed water was originally intended to be used for crop irrigation although it could also be used for artificial aquifer recharge. According to Mexican legislation for wastewater disposal, for “land application” of wastewater (effectively crops irrigation) practically no treatment is necessary, hence its extensive use in Central Mexico. However, according to Mexican water reclamation standards, the reclaimed water must comply with standards similar to those required by California Law (Title 22) and suggested in EPA guidelines. The new Mexican norm for aquifer recharge requires that for direct recharge reclaimed water must basically comply with potable water standards; for indirect recharge, tests must be undertaken to demonstrate that the soil percolation would guarantee the safety and protection of the groundwater. Currently the city of San Luis Rio Colorado in the state of Sonora is the only Mexican city where artificial recharge of a local aquifer has been implemented. Ensenada has the potential for becoming the second city to achieve this goal. Studies by Reynoso-Cuevas et al. (2011) demonstrated that Ensenada’s wastewater does not appear to have high concentration of trace organic chemical contaminants like phenol and 10 of its derivatives, 16 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and 7 aroclor. The concentration below analytical detection limits of these compounds indicates that their concentrations are not significant and/or that they are transformed to other metabolites through conventional wastewater treatment process. Risk minimization should certainly be the main element in the development of groundwater recharge project; results suggest that a combination of controls, such as wastewater treatment processes, water quality, recharge methods, recharge site and integral monitoring, would guarantee the success of the recharge operation and preserve a chemically safe groundwater. There is the potential for using the treated wastewater for direct injection to the aquifer although the high levels of total dissolved solids (TDS) in the aquifer 1.0-26.0 gl-1 (Daessle et al. 2011) remains the biggest challenge for aquifer recharge. Its removal via membrane systems will probably be required. In view of the high salinity of the aquifer, the National Water Commission could grant a special permit even if the 1.0 gl-1 TDS limit is exceeded in percolation water and only if a minimum distance of 0.62 mile (1 km) exists between the recharge site and the sites of drinking water extraction; further hydrogeological studies are being carried out by to determine any potentially adverse effects to the aquifer. As with many water reclamation projects, the scientific and technical aspects can be dealt with. Federal and state governments have invested in wastewater treatment plants and in reclamation facilities. However, the actual implementation of the reclamation schemes has been hindered by economic/cultural reasons, as farmers are not willing to pay for reclaimed water, opting for the continuous extraction of underground water. Farmers also worry that their product will not be able to be exported to the United States if farmers unions in the U.S. find out that it is being irrigated with reclaimed water, despite its compliance with U.S. norms. It appears that this deadlock can only be resolved by continuing to reach consents between the government and
49 Final Report
farmers in which the academic sector can continue be a facilitator and, by all means, undertaking the research to guarantee the adequate implementation of water reclamation schemes.
4.3.2 Water programs in Mexico a non-exhaustive list
Many programs exist for financing water resources management and infrastructure in Mexico. This information can also be found in the following URL with full descriptions. http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/programas/evaluaciones/Paginas/matrices2013.aspx Herein in Table 4-3 we present a list of the most commonly referred water programs with a brief description, the agency in charge and how it could relate to a Water Fund. Table 4-3. Existing programs for the water sector.
Acronym Definition Purpose Agency
APAZU Water infrastructure in urban areas Water sanitation funding CONAGUA
ASA Sustainable water management
Integrated water resources management, water conservation
CONAGUA
FONADIN National program for infrastructure
Coordination for infrastructure FONADIN
FONDEN Natural Disasters Fund Provide funding for flooding SEGOB
FONREGION Regional Fund Infrastructure for low development areas SEGOB
PADUA Program for buyback of water use rights
Buyback water use rights from current water right holders
SAGARPA
PAL Clean Water Program Increase potable water treatment and disinfection coverage
CONAGUA
PRMDR Irrigation district modernization program
Funding for improving irrigation districts CONAGUA
PRODDER Reimbursement for water user charges
Reimbursing for good practices CONAGUA
PROMAGUA Program of Modernization of Water Providers
Modernization of water utilities CONAGUA
PROSANEAR Federal sanitation program for wastewater
Water treatment financing CONAGUA
PSAH Payment for hydrologic environmental services
Compensate for watershed conservation activities
CONAFOR
PROSSAPYS
Program for Rehabilitation and Modernization of Irrigation Districts
Infrastructure in irrigation districts CONAGUA
PTAR Wastewater Treatment Program
Provide funding for wastewater management and treatment
CONAGUA
50 Final Report
Private sector participation in the water sector in Mexico is often limited to building infrastructure and operating wastewater treatment facilities. A small proportion of the operators of the system are private corporations. Local governments have engaged in joint ventures with private corporations to provide water and sanitations, in these cases tariffs often covered a larger proportion of the cost of service than other water and sanitation providers (OECD 2010).
4.3.3 Water management and revenue generating tools
Several tools exist to manage water use and discharges in Mexico based on the user/polluter pays principle. CONAGUA issues water use and wastewater discharge titles (or concessions). Duties charged for water use and wastewater discharge titles are stipulated by the federal duties law (FDL). Other policy instruments include water banks, prohibition zones; mean annual water availability publication, classification of surface and groundwater basins and Mexican standards. CONAGUA, based on the NOM-011-CONAGUA-2000 determines mean annual availability and issues water use title or concession. These need to be registered in the Public Registry of Water Rights (REPDA). By the end of 2009, 282 aquifers and 722 surface water (hydrological) region’s availability were published and 9 hydrologic basins for surface water availability were established. According to CONAGUA (2011) nearly 60% of the REPDA concessions were registered in the REPDA. Over allocation of water use rights has been identified as the main issue in the groundwater basins of the Ensenada Region especially in the Guadalupe Valley where water concessions are nearly twice annual average recharge. The NWL establishes that the duties charged for water use rights (extraction charges) ranged from 0.08 to 0.72 MXP per cubic meter depending on the (nine) water availability zone. These fees are stipulated in the FDL. Wastewater discharge account for the level of pollutants and the type of body of water receiving the discharge. Revenues from this go to the general revenues fund, except for $300 million per year devoted for the Programa de Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos (PSAH), and PRODDER. Table 4-4. Fees for water use ( MXP/100 /m3) availability zone and use (Source: CONAGUA 2011).
Exceptions or waivers exist for fees, especially for agriculture where farmers only pay for over use with respect to their water title. A similar waiver exists for rural communities (<2,500 people) that have not to pay a fee for drinking water uses. CONAGUA issues bills and collects invoices. In 2009, CONAGUA collected $10.7 billion MXP from water use, block sales to urban utilities,
51 Final Report
irrigation, mining, wastewater discharge and other concepts (CONAGUA, 2011). Most of these revenues (74%) come from water use fees. Up to 20% is from water sales to urban areas. Other revenue-generating sources are administrative charges and fines and penalties. However these only fund 3% of the regulation and supervision costs of $6.1 billion MXP in 2012. Poor monitoring capability from CONAGUA makes collection of these revenues difficult. Most water and sanitation providers operate with deficits. According to CONAGUA (2009), out of the 69 largest providers only 8 operate with positive margins. Fortunately, CESPE and other water utilities in Baja California have non-negative margins. CESPE collects most of its revenue ($270 million pesos in 2009) from domestic and industrial users for the sale of 21 Mm3/yr of water. Water trading involves permanent transfers or swapping of water use rights and it occurs mostly within agriculture (95%), 2% from agriculture to urban uses and in 3% from agriculture to industrial uses. CONAGUA authorizes these transfers. A water bank has been in operation for the Baja California Peninsula Watershed Organization since December 2009. The water bank is a venue for water supply users and water demand users to trade water rights increasing economic efficiency of water resources in a region. Article 37bis in the NWL allows the CONAGUA to establish water banks to regulate water use right trades. Water banks facilitate transfer of water use rights. Metering, a poor database of users, differential management in agricultural and industrial use undermines incentives for participating in the water bank. Reports indicate that for Baja California Peninsula Watershed, the water bank decreased the number of water exchange transactions since its establishment from more than 200 to less than 140 per year. Buyback programs exist to reduce water abstraction rights (water use rights) over-concessions. The SAGARPA buyback program, PADUA is for farmers located in areas with at least 20% over concession (overallocation). PADUA buyback compensation is MXP $3/m3 for surface and MXP $6/m3 for groundwater. The payment for ecosystem services program (PSAH) is the largest program in the world and has protected 18,000 hectares from deforestation. A Water Fund could be coupled with this program. Effectiveness in conservation is at a stake since 1.8 million hectares are part of the program and only 18,000 had a measurable impact on deforestation, which has been attributed to poor conservation program design requirements (OECD 2013).
4.4 Largest water uses, volumes of water and associated costs
Figure 4-7 shows that the average volume of water sold by CESPE from 2007 to 2012 was 17.57 Mm3/yr, of which 14.74 Mm3/y corresponded to domestic use, 1.29 Mm3/yr to commercial, 0.88 Mm3/yr to government, 0.60 Mm3/yr to industrial and 0.05 Mm3/yr to others. These uses vary significantly for the areas of Guadalupe and San Antonio, with predominantly agricultural water use. CESPE supplies these areas for urban water uses. From a total of 0.15 Mm3/yr supplied by CESPE in these rural areas of the Guadalupe, 74% are for a common use, 16% for tourism and commerce, 7.3 % in government uses and the rest is industry, fixed price connections, and residential individual intakes. The bulk of the non-CESPE water supplies in the Guadalupe Valley are self-supply wells (IMIP, 2010).
52 Final Report
Figure 4-7. Volume of water sold by CESPE 2007-2012.
Tables 4-5 and 4-6 present the water tariffs depending on the type of user.
53 Final Report
Table 4-5. Water tariffs for domestic use in urban and rural areas for May 2013 (from CESPE).
WATER CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC USE, URBAN AREA Pesos per m3 FROM 0 A 5 m3, MINIMUM CHARGE 48.56 AFTER 5 AND UNTIL 10 m3 11.18 AFTER 10 AND UNTIL 15 m3 12.72 AFTER 15 AND UNTIL 20 m3 14.27 AFTER 20 AND UNTIL 25 m3 21.83 AFTER 25 AND UNTIL 30 m3 23.53 AFTER 30 AND UNTIL 40 m3 40.76 AFTER 40 AND UNTIL 50 m3 43.99 AFTER 50 AND UNTIL 60 m3 45.96 EXCEEDING 60 m3 46.56
WATER CONSUMPTION FOR DOMESTIC USE, RURAL AREA FROM 0 A 5 m3, MINIMUM CHARGE 29.15
AFTER 5 AND UNTIL 10 m3 6.70 AFTER 10 AND UNTIL 15 m3 7.63 AFTER 15 AND UNTIL 20 m3 8.58 AFTER 20 AND UNTIL 25 m3 13.09 AFTER 25 AND UNTIL 30 m3 14.11 AFTER 30 AND UNTIL 40 m3 24.46 AFTER 40 AND UNTIL 50 m3 26.39 AFTER 50 AND UNTIL 60 m3 27.52 EXCEEDING 60 m3 27.94
54 Final Report
Table 4-6. Water tariffs for non-domestic use in urban and rural areas for May 2013 (from CESPE).
WATER CONSUMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, GOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER NON-DOMESTIC USES, URBAN AREA Pesos per m3 FROM 0 A 5 m3, MINIMUM CHARGE 317.18 AFTER 5 AND UNTIL 10 m3 28.00 AFTER 10 AND UNTIL 15 m3 38.32 AFTER 15 AND UNTIL 20 m3 45.14 AFTER 20 AND UNTIL 30 m3 52.99 AFTER 30 AND UNTIL 40 m3 52.99 AFTER 40 AND UNTIL 50 m3 56.68 AFTER 50 AND UNTIL 60 m3 57.80 EXCEEDING 60 m3 AND UNTIL 10,000 m3 60.57 EXCEEDING 10,000 m3 39.74 WATER CONSUMPTION FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, GOVERNMENTAL AND OTHER NON-DOMESTIC USES, RURAL AREA
FROM 0 A 5 m3, MINIMUM CHARGE 190.31 AFTER 5 AND UNTIL 10 m3 16.80 AFTER 10 AND UNTIL 15 m3 23.01 AFTER 15 AND UNTIL 20 m3 27.09 AFTER 20 AND UNTIL 30 m3 31.80 AFTER 30 AND UNTIL 40 m3 31.80 AFTER 40 AND UNTIL 50 m3 33.99 AFTER 50 AND UNTIL 60 m3 34.69 EXCEEDING 60 m3 AND UNTIL 10,000 m3 36.36 EXCEEDING 10,000 m3 23.83
Agriculture in Guadalupe and Maneadero is the largest water users in the study area. CESPE, the local utility is the second largest water use. The third category of use is self-supplied3 industry. Table 4-7 shows the largest urban water users, their volume and costs per cubic meter of supplying water.
3 Self-supplied industry is industry that does not receive water from CESPE but instead operates its own wells and has water extraction concessions from CONAGUA
55 Final Report
Table 4-7. Water use by large user and region. Source: Author calculations from IMIP 2010, CESPE 2013 and other planning documents.
Water User Description Total Use (Mm3/y)
Range Cost ($ MXP/ m3)
City of Ensenada CESPE-Residential Domestic uses 14.74 9.71-46.56 CESPE Commerce and Tourism
Commerce and Tourism 1.29 28-63.44
CESPE Industrial Industrial uses 0.60 28-63.44 CESPE Government Government offices and buildings 0.88 28-63.44 La Mision CESPE Water exports for urban use 6.15 N/A Agriculture All irrigated agriculture 1.4 0 Guadalupe Valley Agriculture All irrigated agriculture 19.7 0 CESPE Water exports for urban use 5.8 N/A Maneadero Agriculture Irrigated agriculture 19.20 0 CESPE Water exports for urban use 8.58 N/A It is estimated that for CESPE the direct cost of a cubic meter of water is between $9.71 and 46.56 MXP depending on the volume of water used by month (Tables 4-5 and 4-6). Agriculture has a zero rate extraction charge for water unless the water used exceeds the concession amount (Table 4-7).
4.5 Subsidies that may impede water conservation strategies
Water charges revenues raised in a given region by CONAGUA are not in line with the expenditures in that region. This creates cross-subsidies and a misconnection between policy objectives and accountability from water beneficiaries in region. Literature on water management in Mexico recognizes that water pricing scheme do not account for the true economic value of water (Howitt and Medellín-Azuara, 2008). In many cases utilities either break-even on the net operation margins or have losses later reimbursed through federal support programs as described above. CONAGUA transfers or reimburses water utilities a portion of the abstraction charges for investment good performance through PRODDER, which is not necessarily an undesirable incentive. Actions from the utilities that count towards PRODDER include improvement in efficiency through metering, reduction of water system losses and rehabilitation of infrastructure; potable water infrastructure; and sanitation infrastructure. Verification procedures apply and other requirements apply and were published as part of PRODDER’s terms of reference in the Federal Official Gazette on June 18, 2010. Another set of challenges are that charges by availability zone are adjusted for inflation yet not revised periodically (Table 4-4). In addition, regressive water charges may create the wrong incentives, as larger per capita use water utilities receive a smaller rate (Table 4-4). Pumping subsidies through the electricity subsidy in agriculture known as the Tarifa 9 are a challenge to sustainability of groundwater in many regions of the country. Ensenada is no exception. The Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) administers this cross-subsidy that
56 Final Report
conflicts with water policy objectives in the Watershed Organization’s regional water plans to reduce applied water in agriculture. Another important subsidy is the zero rates on the extraction charges for agriculture when water use does not exceed the concession. Lastly, monitoring, measuring and enforcement undermine policy objectives in the water plans. A metering program coupled with increase in the agricultural water extraction charge may help mitigate overexploitation generate additional revenue.
4.6 Indirect effects of a Water Fund on water pricing
Indirect effects of programs like a Water Fund on water pricing are largely unexplored for the Ensenada Region and for Mexico in general. Water pricing in Mexico is mostly a policy process outcome rather than a market outcome. A large proportion of the water sector expense budget is subsidized from tax payer monies and oil revenues income. As mentioned above, water rates paid by agricultural water users and municipal utilities are determined by the Federal Duties Law every year. These tariffs are based on the availability zone. However, water user associations may set their own fees for their members to maintain irrigation district infrastructure and operations for example. For urban municipal water utilities, the state congress in Baja California for example publishes the annual income and expense budget on December 31st of the year before the new fiscal budget in the official gazette. Fees and tariffs are determined for each type of user: residential, commercial, industrial and institutional. The Law also publishes rules for water fee exemptions. These include poor senior citizens and widows, retirees with income below a certain threshold, etc., schools and others. Thus no market mechanism exists that drives water fees or tariffs paid by users. A key factor influencing water fees is water availability in the region. Since water availability in the region is unlikely to change dramatically with a Water Fund, the FDL might not change water charges for cities and agriculture. A Water Fund however may result in higher charges for water users in the region, as capital provisions from the large water users will be required to establish and maintain the fund. If resident users are seen as part of that representative large residential water user, water price impacts are rather direct. Thus without a market equilibrium for water price, indirect effects of a Water Fund on water prices are unlikely and hard to predict. A better understanding of the mechanisms that drive water tariffs in the state would be helpful in eliciting indirect price effects if any. Recommendations from recent reports (OECD 2010) often point to better signal the economic value of water uses by changing the rates and fees. CONAGUA has been working on guidelines to perform studies on economic and financial valuation of water. As water management in Mexico approaches to a more beneficiary pays approach, water pricing is likely to change regardless of the establishment of a Water Fund and participants in a Water Fund are likely to be required be partners and donors in the fund.
4.7 Areas of Opportunity for Water Management in the Ensenada Region
4.7.1 Water stress
Major water challenges in Mexico include high levels of water stress, which CONAGUA defines as the percent of water off stream uses (from diversions and groundwater pumping) from the total water availability. A percentage greater than 40% indicates to CONAGUA a strong water stress
57 Final Report
in a region. Water stress is particularly significant in the north of the country and areas such as the Ensenada Region that report lower availability, high population density in the urbanized areas and high water demands for agricultural and urban uses. CONAGUA (2011) reports that for the Baja California Peninsula Hydrologic region the pressure degree is 73.3%.
4.7.2 Water quality
Water pollution is also a challenge for most areas of the country that report polluted and heavily polluted surface waters in monitored sites for various water quality parameters such as biochemical oxygen demand (14%), chemical oxygen demand (31%), and total suspended solids (9%). For the Baja California Peninsula, these metrics are 15%, 75% and 3% respectively. The goal for 2012 was to increase municipal wastewater treatment from 42% to 60% (OECD 2010). The city of Ensenada has an exceptional coverage of wastewater treatment (Mendoza-Espinosa et al. 2004). Yet water quality problems include saline intrusion in the coastal aquifers causing total dissolved solids to exceed drinking water standards as well as being harmful for crops. Saline intrusion can be controlled by recharging coastal aquifers with reclaimed water, discontinuing overdraft, augmenting water supply and reducing water use.
4.7.3 Water Resources Management and Financing
In the water sector in Mexico there is a significant disconnect between revenue generating activities, planning (objectives) and funding for water resources management and infrastructure. Regional planning centralized in the CONAGUA headquarters often excludes regional needs. Even when the NWL Watershed Organizations and the Watershed Councils do not have as much leverage in setting policy goals in the regional plans. Also, the Watershed Organizations lack of financial self-sufficiency; these help collecting revenues from the water sector at the regional level yet these go to the federal general funds. On the other end, the federal budget for the water sector allocated to CONAGUA and redistributed to the 13 Watershed Organization regions is not tied to the water sector revenue collection in the region. Thus the Watershed Organizations do not have control over water sales and other fees revenues nor on budget spending. A second issue in the economic context is the high level of subsidy in the water sector expenses. Less than half of the revenues for water are generated through user fees. The 2030 water agenda mentions that national and regional water plans are built over the beneficiary pays principle and budgets are estimated to achieve policy goals, yet there is no financial strategic planning for funding these policy goals. For the case of Baja California and the Ensenada Region both the regional water plan 2030 and the IMIP 2010 water plan provide budget needs and funding needs but in the best of the cases the entity in charge is cited assuming funding will be available. On rare occasions infrastructural funding is tied to revenue activities. Increased fees to large users, better enforcement reduction of subsidies may help reduce the load on the general funds. Uses of the bond market to finance infrastructure should also be considered. There are some cases of success in which local governments aided by private financial organizations establish trusts and issue bonds that are repaid from tariffs. Estado de México, Quintana Roo and Campeche have used various financial instruments to fund water infrastructure investments OECD (2010).
4.8 . Summary and Conclusions
The state of Baja California and the Ensenada Region in the present study are areas more economically prominent than other regions in Mexico. Economic indicators for the region point to a well-developed area with low marginalization. CESPE, the water utility for the Ensenada Region is among the few utilities that operate with non-negative margins. Agriculture in the
58 Final Report
Ensenada region provides more than 60% of the total agricultural value in the state. Although water management is heavily centralized around CONAGUA, opportunities for improvement exist. A Water Fund in the region could help in areas such as 1) reducing water stress by protecting and augmenting aquifer recharge, and 2) improving financial sustainability in the water sector of the region by establishing links between revenue generating activities and policy objectives funding. Synergies with current payment for ecosystem services programs like the PSAH may facilitate implementation of projects within a Water Fund.
59 Final Report
Chapter 5 Ensenada Region Water Resource Stakeholder Analysis
5.1 Chapter overview
The stakeholder component chapter brings together the preceding chapters on Mexico’s political and economic policies and the Ensenada Region hydrology and infrastructure to see how the components play out on the ground through the analysis of the local water users and the diversity of water uses. This chapter reviews the interactions of water user characteristics, the variety of water uses, the effects of the biophysical and socio-political constraints and relationships among of these factors in establishing objectives of a Water Fund. The chapter gives a profile of the Ensenada Region water user and uses by aquifer, potential Water Fund investors, the involvement of key stakeholders, the political feasibility and finally the benefits and costs of a Water Fund for Ensenada Region.
5.2 Profile of the Ensenada Region Water Use
The Ensenada Region encompasses a variety of social contexts representative of the diverse agriculture, ranching, residential, urban land uses and a complex land ownership system of public, private and communal tenure. The four subregions (Figure 5-1) covered in this report, La Mision, Maneadero, the city of Ensenada and Guadalupe Valley have distinct geographies—coastal and inland valleys, —agrarian and urban socio-economic compositions and hydrologies that affect the respective water resource practices. Given its semi-arid climate, groundwater is the main water source for the Ensenada Region. Groundwater extracted from the four subregions both supports the domestic and economic activities in local watersheds and supplies water to the city of Ensenada via a network of aqueducts and storage tanks (Figure 5-1).
Figure 5-1 Ensenada Region Primary Hydrological Systems and Water Infrastructure
60 Final Report
In Mexico water resources are organized by category and priority of use as a way to ensure universal water provision. Priority use is in the following order: domestic, urban public, livestock, agriculture, ecological conservation, electrical energy generation for public services and industry. An additional category ‘multiples’ is given to titleholders using water for multiple purposes in the order of agriculture, livestock and domestic uses. The ‘multiple’ titleholders represent a large percentage of concessions and are usually lower income, small-scale agriculture and domestic users that are outside of the more urban CESPE water provision network. This very likely constitutes a small percentage of the total use. Small-scale water users (domestic and multiple) are less likely to tolerate the economic burden of increased costs of pumping4, repositioning or digging of deeper wells and water quality impacts caused by a falling water table and groundwater contamination. In the Ensenada Region agriculture irrigation and urban water supply are the largest groundwater demand. Land ownership is divided into public, private and ejido5 land tenure systems. The numerous ejidos in the region are a large proportion of undeveloped areas (more than 50%). The City of Ensenada currently depends on the four local aquifers for almost all of the urban populations’ water use6. Viticulture production in Guadalupe Valley and export-oriented agriculture in Maneadero7 are the largest water uses in the respective watersheds. These concessions are given to individuals, agri-businesses and ejido-land owners. Figure 5-2 depicts water use percentages by category and aquifer. Groundwater is primarily used for irrigation to maintain crop productivity in an otherwise inhospitable semi-arid environment. Whereas most of groundwater in La Mision and Ensenada is extracted by the state water commission utility for Ensenada (Comision Estatal Servicios Publicos de Ensenada--CESPE) to support the burgeoning urban population of the city of Ensenada and some neighboring residential areas. The Ensenada Region’s intensive use of groundwater combined with low precipitation and limited groundwater recharge potential has resulted in aquifer overdraft and water table decline. Groundwater depletion in Maneadero valley and La Mision has caused seawater intrusion and saline concentrations above the legal maximum for drinking water. Agriculture production is not only adversely affected by the salinity of the groundwater, but also the encroaching urban population of Ensenada challenges both current water availability and future land use.
4 Tarifa 9 an agriculture subsidy of some 50% provide by the federal electricity commission Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE) for registering wells for agriculture use. The subsidy does not include other uses. 5The Ejido is a communal land tenure system that was put into Agrarian Law (Ley de Agraria) in 1917 following the reform of Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution. In 1992, Article 27 was amended and a new Agrarian Law (Ley de Agraria) was enacted to privatize ejidal lands and make them available as a commodity as part of Mexico’s adoption of neo-liberal policies of free trade. The Ejidal lands can now be sold, rented and held as collateral--a radical departure from the previous socialist model. Ejidos may opt to disband and divide the land or continue to mange land and resources communally. If ejidatarios choose to continue as an ejido decisions about land and resource use are subject to the ejido’s assembly approval process. 6 Emilio López Zamora reservoir located in Ensenada contributes a small proportion (27l/s) 7 90% of Maneadero agriculture production is exported to the US. CONAGUA. Plan Manejo Integrado del Agua para el Aquifero de Maneadero (PIAM).
61 Final Report
Figure 5-2 Ensenada Region water use by category and aquifer (Source: Author calculations with information from IMIP 2010).
Table 5-1. Ensenada Region Water Balance (in Mm3/y) (Source: CONAGUA, 2009).
Aquifer
Average yearly
recharge
Committed Natural
discharge
Total Concession
Extraction volume
allocated by
technical studies
Average yearly
availability
Deficit Water
Use Category
Guadalupe Valley 23.9 0.0 44.22 19.9 0.00 -20.32 Prohibited
La Mision 6.5 1.0 7.79 6.1 0.00 -2.29 Prohibited
Maneadero 20.8 0.0 38.37 30.6 0.00 -17.57 Prohibited
Ensenada 3.7 0.0 10.55 3.6 0.00 -6.85 Prohibited
In response to groundwater over-exploitation, the region is prohibited by federal decree8 to construct new wells and extract water beyond the volume concessioned (Table 5-1). The decline 8 The first federal ban was in 1961 for Maneadero, 1962 for Guadalupe Valley and 1965 for the State of Baja California prohibiting all new groundwater development with the exception of domestic uses and requiring registration of all wells
62 Final Report
in groundwater availability constraints to new development and economic expansion in the various sectors (IMIP 2010). According to the 1992 National Water Law (Ley de Aguas Nacionales—LAN) urban water supply for domestic use holds priority over all other uses including agriculture. The constraints of existing water resources in conjunction with the growing urban population puts the regions’ current agriculture production and tourism, especially the internationally renowned Wine Route (Ruta del Vino), in jeopardy. The immediate need to address the exhausted water supply has consequently left little room to adequately examine and address the environmental impact of groundwater depletion and the related cost to the local watershed’s ecosystem services. The competing water demands and the potentially deleterious effects of groundwater overdraft on environmental resources has spurred investigation and investment into other sources to augment water supply and reduce urban dependence on the local aquifers (IMIP 2010). In response to the region’s water security concerns, integrated management plans have been devised through multi-institutional collaboration to examine the characteristics and current conditions of the groundwater systems and explore scenarios to resolve the water balance and quality dilemmas. The integrated management plan for the Ensenada Municipality is Programa Integral del Agua de Municipio de Ensenada (PIAME) and for the city of Ensenada the Programa Integral del Agua de Ensenada (PIAE). Guadalupe Valley and Maneadero also have integrated management plans and the plan for La Mision is in progress. The PIAME outlines the proposed projects and timeline for execution. Some projects that are underway or being planned include 1) new infrastructure to increase urban water supply and enhance aquifer recharge, 2) conservation and water use efficiency, 3) water use metering 4) and improvements in the institutional integration of sustainable water management (IMIP 2010).
5.3 Water use and water users for the Ensenada Region aquifers
5.3.1 The City of Ensenada
Water Users and Uses
As discussed in the previous section, the city of Ensenada receives almost all of its water supply from four aquifers: La Mision, Maneadero, Guadalupe Valley and groundwater from below the city (Table 5-1). The city of Ensenada extracts 22%9 of the total combined water volume concessioned for the four aquifers. The state water commission CESPE provides water and sanitation services to the 98.6% of the 307,506 inhabitants (CESPE 2013) of the city of Ensenada as well as many of the commercial, industry and other public uses.
constructed prior to the ban; In 2002 CONAGUA prohibited further aquifer development following water balance studies that demonstrated overdraft conditions. 9 The figure is based on volumetric concessions listed in DOF 2003 and is derived from the combined CESPE concession volume for the four aquifers over the total concession volume. The DOF figure 4.1 Mm3 is significantly less than CESPE reported volume concession of 212l/s or 6.7 Mm3. This figure represents water volume rights and not consumption. For example, in 2006 the water demand was 740 l/s, a difference of 48 l/s over the allotted concession of 692 Mm3. It is important to note that recent efforts in conservation education and promotion, has steadied the increasing rate of demand.
63 Final Report
Figure 5-3. Ensenada Region Water Balance Chart (With information from REPDA 2013)
Water from the Guadalupe aquifer is supplied through the Morelos aqueduct (22 km in length) that merges with the La Mision aqueduct (25 km) in a holding tank. Once the two aqueducts merge, the infrastructure receives the name of Morelos aqueduct and end at the Morelos tanks, a further 13 km away. From the Morelos tanks, a fraction of the water is sent to El Sauzal and the rest to the city of Ensenada. On the other hand, water from the Maneadero aquifer is delivered via the Maneadero aqueduct (length 13 km) until it reaches the Altavista tanks where it combines with water from the Emilio López Zamora dam and from the Ensenada aquifer (Figure 5-4). According to CESPE, 98.87% of urban wastewater is collected by the sewer system (Figure 5-4) and all of it is treated in four wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), namely El Sauzal, El Gallo, Noreste and El Naranjo. A fifth WWTP is located at Maneadero and it treats only wastewater recollected at the Maneadero town. There is a pipe that connects the El Naranjo WWTP to the southern area of the Maneadero valley intended for the agricultural use of reclaimed water. However, such infrastructure has never been used.
64 Final Report
Figure 5-4. Schematic of water supply for urban demand to the city of Ensenada and wastewater treatment plants average treatment during 2012.
Figure 5-5 presents the way urban water has been supplied from 2010 to 2012. As expected, demand is higher during the summer months while in winter in tends to decrease. On average from 2010 to 2012, the Maneadero valley supplied 272 l/s, La Misión 195 l/s, Guadalupe valley 184 l/s, Ensenada’s aquifer 134 l/s and the Emilio López Zamora dam 40 l/s giving a total of 825 l/s.
Figure 5-5. Water supplied for Ensenada’s urban demand 2010-2012 (with information from CESPE).
65 Final Report
Overall the average volume of water delivered to the city of Ensenada from 2007 to 2012 was 21.96 Mm3/yr as shown in Figure 5.6, with average losses of 20%.
Figure 5-6. Volume of water delivered, sold and unaccounted for 2007-2012 (with information from CESPE).
There are 283 registered wells for the Ensenada aquifer concessioned for public and private use. Table 5-2 shows the Ensenada aquifer water users and approximate volume concessioned. The wells are located throughout the city center and immediate surrounding areas and are titled to CESPE, colonias, localidades, ranchos and ejidos and other private operators. The ejidos in the Ensenada watershed are Ejido Adolfo Ruiz Cortinez, Ejido Ley de Reforma Agraria and in the upper watershed Ejido Piedras Gordas. The water use concession categories are listed in the order of largest to smallest concession volume: urban public, agriculture, services, industry, domestic and livestock. The urban public wells are classified for water purveyors such as CESPE and water committees (comités de agua). Water committees administer water to residential areas (colonias) outside of the CESPE network. The industry concession titles are held by CEMEX, Fábricas Monterrey, AGARMEX, Herdez among others. The agriculture, livestock and domestic concessions are mostly titled to ranchos, which are located in the outlying upper watershed areas. The primary water use of the CESPE provision is domestic supply, which is 84% of the total water use10; commercial use is 7.7% mostly for tourism—hotels and restaurants; government use is 5.1% and industrial use is 2.6%, CESPE (2013) is also the water and sanitation provider for some of the residential areas in the Ensenada Region outside of the city limits supplying 50% of the population with water services and the other 50% obtaining water from privately owned wells, communally managed wells, or purchased through a private water purveyor and stored in water tanks (IMIP 2010). 10 The total water extracted is 687 L/s however due to leaks in water conveyance just 550 L/s is received a 19.9% loss.
66 Final Report
Table 5-2. Ensenada Water Use Categories (Source: REPDA 2013).
Ensenada watershed water user and concession amount by category Use Category Water users Concession
Volume (m3) Percentage of total use
Titles
Agriculture Ranchos, Ejidos and parcelas 2.05 33% 128
Multiple Small-scale Agriculture, Domestic, Livestock [0.91]* [13%]* [72]*
Urban Public
CESPE (44% of total aquifer concessions); Ejidos: Adolfo Ruiz Cortinez, Ley de Reforma Agraria Piedras Gordas; Colonia Gomez Morin
3.57 46% 9
Industrial
Fabricas Monterrey, Agroindustrias Rowen, Empacadora Mar, CEMEX Mexico, Herdez, AGARMEX
0.39 5% 11
Domestic Ranchos, residential use 0.02 <1% 103
Livestock Ranchos; Ranchos Ejidos parcelas 0.02 <1% 17
Service Commercial—hotels, stores, restaurants 1.25 16% 15 TOTAL 7.29 283 *Values in the ‘Multiple’ category are nested values mostly in the agriculture category. ‘Multiple’ category represents 2nd and 3rd water uses as domestic and livestock indicating that most agriculture is small-scale and at the household level.
** CESPE concession 130l/s; 4.1 Mm3
Ensenada aquifer reliability concerns
CESPE uses approximately 44%11 of the total water concession volume for the Ensenada aquifer, primarily for domestic uses. Most water use (66% of total volume) is divided among agriculture, services, industry and other public water service providers. However according to water balance estimations12 the CESPE concession volume alone is 11% above the natural aquifer recharge and the total concession volume for the aquifer is close to three times greater than average recharge (Table 5-1). The contrast between the concession volume and the actual water availability indicates groundwater mining and the overexploited status of the Ensenada aquifer (Table 5-1). The combination of the low volumetric recharge capacity of the aquifer, minimal and infrequent precipitation, increasing demand and the over-concessioning of the Ensenada aquifer put into question the future of water supply. The city of Ensenada population is projected to increase from
11 CESPE concession 130 l/s; total concession 9.3 Mm3; natural recharge 3.7 Mm3
12 DOF 2003
67 Final Report
307,000 to 422,283 by 2030 (CONAPO)13. According to the National Water Law (Ley de Aguas Nacionales—LAN) domestic water provision has priority over all other uses threatening the water supply needs that support economic activities—primarily tourism, industrial use, the agrarian culture and local ecosystem services.
Ensenada potential Water Fund investors
The city of Ensenada industrial and commercial uses depend on a reliable water supply. The sectors combined are the largest volumetric uses; supporting the economic activities and thus livelihoods of many residents. Five percent of the total water concessioned for the Ensenada aquifer is for industrial use and 16% is titled to commercial users. However, CESPE provides another 2.6% of its concession to industry and 7.7% to commercial uses. The continued success and survival of these enterprises hinges on an increase in water supply. Industrial use is last in priority ranking for water supply and therefore at the greatest risk. The largest industry dependent on a secure water supply, are the following (in order of largest water consumer): Fabricas Monterrey, Agroindustrias Rowen, Empacadora Mar, CEMEX. Large commercial water users are: SuperAqua (bottled water company), Nueva Ensenada.
5.3.2 Maneadero Valley
Water Users and Uses
The valley of Maneadero is just south of the city of Ensenada and includes the towns of Chapultepec, Rodolfo Sanchez Taboada, Colonia Benito Garcia (El Zorillo) and the surrounding rural areas. Recent and rapid population growth has connected Chapultepec to the southernmost extension of the city of Ensenada. The current population is 29,858 (INEGI 2013) and is expected to rise to 34,22114 by 2030 at the same growth rate as the city of Ensenada. The Maneadero aquifer supplies 24% of water use for the growing population of Ensenada; and in addition, supports the domestic and economic activities within the Maneadero watershed. Table 5-3 shows the total water concession is 37.7Mm3 and the natural recharge is 20.8 an overdraft of 16.9 Mm3. The aquifer is classified as ‘overexploited’ and further groundwater development is ‘prohibited’ by law (SEMARNAT 2003). There are 396 titles that are divided between the CESPE concession for the city of Ensenada, agriculture use, domestic, urban public (other than CESPE), services and industry. The largest water consumptive group in the valley is agriculture, which holds 301 concession titles and utilizes 71% of the groundwater resources; commercial export agriculture, greenhouse operations and ranchos comprise agricultural use. The multiple category represents mostly small-scale agriculture, livestock and domestic uses and is a large proportion (33%) of the total concession volume. The CESPE water concession for the city of Ensenada is the largest water consumer in the public urban use category, which constitutes 17% of the category total. Other urban public water users are residents of the various colonias found within the bounds of the former ejido Chapultepec and ejido Nacionalista de Sanchez Taboada known also as the towns of Chapultepec and Rodolfo Sanchez Taboada. Colonia Benito Garcia is an area of rapid population growth located in the upper part of the Maneadero watershed. Other ejidos are also situated in the 13 The values are estimates based on current rate of growth; applies only to the urban areas and does not include surrounding rural areas. 14 CONAPO Proyecciones de la Poblacion de Mexico 2005-2030. 3.5% growth rate similar to the City of Ensenada
68 Final Report
upper watershed and are mostly small-scale agriculture, livestock and domestic users. The following ejidos are located in the Maneadero watershed and are mostly agriculture, livestock and undeveloped zones: Coronel Esteban Cantu, Antonio Melendres, Lic. Jose Lopez Portillo, El Pípila and Uruapan. Domestic, commercial services, industry and public uses are the smallest water consumers. Water use categories, water users and amounts are shown in Table 5-3 below. Table 5-3. Maneadero Water Use Categories (Source: REPDA 2013).
Use Category Water users Concession (Mm3)
Percentage of total use Titles
Agriculture
Commercial production, Rancho Las Palomas, greenhouses, Ranchos, Ejido Nacionalista Chapultepec
24.79 71% 301
Multiples* Agriculture, Livestock and Domestic [8.59*] [33%*] [112*]
Public Urban
CESPE (~17%)** Colonias and Ex-Ejido Chapultepec (Chapultepec), Ejido Nationalista de Sanchez Taboada (Rudolfo Sanchez Taboada)—Comite de Aguas
8.4* 25% 20
Industry Hielo Alaska, Oceano Industrial 0.216 0.63% 5
Domestic Ranchos, residential use 0.011 0.03% 35
Livestock Ranchos 0.029 0.08% 16
Services Commercial—stores, restaurants 0.623 2% 18
Total 37.66 396 *Values in the ‘Multiple’ category are nested values mostly in the agriculture category. ‘Multiple’ category represents 2nd and 3rd water uses as domestic and livestock indicating that a proportion of agriculture is small-scale and at the household level.
**CESPE concession 200l/s, 6.31Mm3
Maneadero aquifer reliability concerns
The growing population of Maneadero valley as an extension of Ensenada is transforming the landscape from agrarian to urban and consequently water demand is shifting to support the expanding population. In addition to water volume concerns, water quality is deteriorating caused by aquifer overdraft and the influx of seawater. Seawater intrusion has contaminated groundwater resources under approximately 50% of the Maneadero valley area, which have total dissolved solids (TDS) counts greater than 2,000 ppm; exceeding the legal drinking water limit of 1000 ppm (CONAGUA Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), NA). The salinity of groundwater is a significant cost to agriculture production affecting the land value, crop productivity and in some cases adding costs in for water treatment technology (e.g. seawater desalination). The urbanization of the Maneadero valley and the shifting trend of supplying water resources to keep
69 Final Report
pace with the expanding population in combination with substantial water quality issues poses significant challenges to the management of the area’s water resources.
Maneadero potential Water Fund investors
The Maneadero groundwater supply primarily supports commercial agriculture, exporting 90% of production to the US markets. Irrigation is critical for intensive agriculture production. Large-scale producers and water consumers such as Rancho Las Palomas among others, may be willing to invest in a Water Fund to secure water availability, quality and quantity. Sistema Producto Flor and Sistema Producto Agricola are important associations to collaborate with to identify potential investors. In addition to agriculture users, industrial use may also have willing investors. Hielo Alaska (ice manufacturer) and Ocean Industrial are large concession holders and may be interested in supporting a Water Fund.
5.3.3 Guadalupe Valley
Water Users and Uses
Guadalupe Valley is an agricultural inland valley located 35 Km from Ensenada and includes the rural communities of San Antonio de las Minas (Villa Juarez), Colonia Articulo 115, Francisco Zarco, Ejido El Porvenir, Ejido Emiliano Zapata, the indigenous community (Comunidad Indigena) San Antonio de Necua15 and other outlying areas. The average population of the valley is 5,110 (CONAPO 2013) and is expected to increase to 7,544 by 2030. The valley is the most productive viticulture region in Mexico producing 90% of the domestic wine. Guadalupe Valley is part of the Wine Route (“Ruta del Vino”), a popular national and international tourist destination. Viticulture production in the valley has a history dating back to Spanish mission era of the mid 1800’s. The region has a unique and rich cultural heritage of agrarian livelihoods, viticulture production, indigenous population, Russian immigrants, and most recently as a wine tourism destination.
The primary water users are viticulture, agriculture, wineries and the city of Ensenada (Table 5-4). Agriculture is the largest water volume allocation with 58% of water concessions. The large-scale viticulture producers are powerful economic figures in the valley and region at large. The viticulture production and wine tourism are a focus for rural and regional economic development. The multiple use category is a mix of agriculture, domestic, livestock, and some service uses. Multiple use water users are typically small-scale agriculture and domestic users. Agriculture and multiple uses combined are 82% of the total concession quantity. CESPE extracts approximately 11% of the total concession for the city of Ensenada water supply. However in times of increased demand groundwater extraction rates can increase slightly from 150 l/s to 160 l/s. CESPE has recently (2010-present) expanded the water service network to rural areas in the valley such as Colonia Mixteca (indigenous population), San Antonio Necua (Indigenous Community) and San Antonio de Las Minas. The water uses and volume amounts are shown below Table 5-4.
15 The Kumiai of San Antonio Necua chose the legal identity of an ejido rather than Comunidad Indigena
70 Final Report
Table 5-4. Guadalupe Water Use Categories (Source: REPDA 2013).
Use Category Water users
Concession Volume (Mm3)
Percentage of total use Titles
Agriculture Viticulture production, L.A. Cetto, agriculture, Ejido El Porvenir, Ranchos 20.97 58% 263
Multiple * Agriculture, Domestic, Livestock [8.79]* [24%]* [219]*
Urban Public
CESPE (Ensenada concession 11%**); localidades: San Antonio de las Minas, Francisco Zarco; Colonia Articulo 115; ejidos: El Porvenir, San Antonio Necua—Comite de Aguas
6.33 17% 4
Industrial Inmobiliara Vides del Guadalupe, Cristapuro, Productos Olivo 0.13 0.37% 3
Domestic Ranchos, residential use 0.04 0.10% 85
Livestock Ranchos 0.01 0.03% 17 Service Commercial—stores, restaurants 0.01 0.01% 14 TOTAL 36.28*** 60516 *Values in the ‘Multiple’ category are nested values mostly in the agriculture category. ‘Multiple’ category represents 2nd and 3rd water uses as domestic and livestock indicating that a significant proportion of agriculture is small-scale and at the household level. In contrast to the other water user tables the multiple values are factored into the Total.
**CESPE concession is 150l/s; 4.7Mm3
*** DOF concession volume 43.37Mm3
Guadalupe Valley aquifer reliability concerns
According to recent studies current water extraction estimates fall just below recharge, however the total volume concessioned is almost twice greater the natural recharge (CONAGUA 2009a). Coliform contamination of drinking water in residential wells in El Porvenir and in the recent past in San Antonio Necua caused by inadequate or lack of sewerage, is a pressing concern. Nitrate pollution of groundwater from agro-chemicals also located in El Porvenir (Daesslé et al., 2006) and salinity contamination caused by agricultural irrigation in the lower watershed are important water quality issues. The extraction of sand through a federal concession in the Guadalupe River and upper watershed may adversely affect aquifer recharge and is a major concern and a priority for the valley community.
16 COTAS Guadalupe provided some of the data for table. Some of the data is inconsistent with REPDA and DOF such as concession amount. DOF 2003 concession is 43.4 Mm3. The number of wells is corrected here original amount was 595 an arithmetic error.
71 Final Report
Guadalupe Valley potential Water Fund investors
Viticulture is the main economic activity in Guadalupe Valley and mostly relies on irrigation to increase productive capacity. Large-scale viticulture producers are the most capable of investing in a Water Fund. The largest viticulture and winery operation is L.A. Cetto Winery holding title to 35 concession equaling approximately 7.5Mm3 or 17% of the total concession volume. Monte Xanic winery, Pedro Domecq and Rancho Sandoval are other large concession titleholders. Some of the largest industrial water users with good probability of investing are Inmobiliaria Vides del Guadalupe, Cristapuro (bottled water company) and Productos Olivo. Sistema Producto Vid is a government-sponsored viticulture association that collaborates on important viticulture issues and may be a partner in a Water Fund. The viticulture association Asociacion de Vinicultores de Baja California may also be an important partner or Water Fund investor.
5.3.4 La Mision Water Use and Users
La Mision is a predominantly rural valley along the Pacific Coast approximately 50 km north of Ensenada. La Mision watershed encompasses the town of La Mision, the Colonia Santa Anita, and ejidos La Mision, Ensenada and Santa Rosa located in the lower watershed. In the upper watershed are the Ejido Lazaro Cardenas and the indigenous community (Comunidad Indigena) San Jose de la Zorra. Table 5-5 identifies all of the water user categories for La Mision. The largest water concession belongs to CESPE for water delivery to the city of Ensenada. The total concession for the La Mision aquifer is 7.4 Mm3 and the Ensenada current concession is 6.7 Mm3 or 90% of the total (IMIP 2010). However, according to CONAGUA figures, the CESPE concession for Ensenada is 4.1 Mm3 or 55% of total concession volume (Table 5-5). La Mision’s water availability status is classified as being in “deficit” and no new concessions are being authoruzed (Table 5-1). Because domestic use has priority over all other uses, in times of greater water demand CESPE can extract water above the allotted concession. In 2006 CESPE extracted 7.9 Mm3 (250 l/s) an increase of 1.2 Mm3 exceeding the 7.4 Mm3 natural recharge17.
17 These figures do not take into account all other uses demonstrating that the CESPE concession alone can cause a hydrological imbalance especially in times of greater demand (PIAME 2010). There is also a concession of 1.0 Mm3
for the natural discharge. The total concession with the natural discharge concession added in is 8.4 Mm3.
72 Final Report
Table 5-5. La Mision Water Use categories (Source REPDA 2013).
Use Category Water users Concession Volume (Mm3)
Percentage of total use
Titles
Agriculture Agriculture, Ranchos; Ejido La Mision, Ejido Ensenada, Ejido Santa Rosa
2.47 32% 95
Multiple* Domestic, Agriculture, Livestock [1.20]* [16%]* [49]*
Urban Public** CESPE (Ensenada concession 55%)**; Localidad La Mision-Comite de Aguas
4.80 63% 2
Industrial 0.00 0% 0
Domestic
Ranchos, residential use; Ejido La Mision, Ejido Ensenada, Ejido Santa Rosa, San Jose de la Zorra (Indigenous Community)
0.01 0% 19
Livestock Ranchos; Ejido La Mision, Ejido Ensenada, Ejido Santa Rosa
0.03 0% 12
Service Commercial—stores, restaurants 0.32 4% 5
TOTAL*** 7.62*** 100% 133 * Values in the ‘Multiple’ category are nested values mostly in the agriculture category. Approximately 42% (1.2 Mm3) of agriculture has 2nd and 3rd uses for domestic and livestock indicating that a significant proportion of agriculture is small-scale and at the household level. ** CESPE concession volume is derived from CONAGUA 2002 Determinacion de la Disponibilidad de Agua de Aquifero La Mision. Current CESPE Ensenada concession 212l/s; 6.69 Mm3 or 90% of total; According to DOF the total concession for the aquifer is 7.43 Mm3. *** This total does not include CESPE current concession because of data inconsistencies.
La Mision Aquifer reliability concerns
La Mision aquifer is hydrologically connected to the Guadalupe River located in the upper watershed to the east contributing most of the recharge for La Mision aquifer. The Guadalupe River connects with other tributaries and eventually discharges into the Pacific Ocean. In contrast to Ensenada, Maneadero and Guadalupe Valley, La Mision does not have an integrated management plan document most likely because the watershed has less economic importance. However, La Mision aquifer supplies the city of Ensenada with 195 l/s (Figure 5-5) and is relied upon to supply the city when there is greater demand. Little is known about aquifer conditions such as water quality and water level changes. However, seawater intrusion was discovered in the lower watershed, rising TDS levels above 1,000 ppm up to 5 km inland making the water unsuitable for human use. Contaminated wells are mostly privately operated for domestic, agriculture and livestock uses (Ibarra, 2005). The four CESPE wells are located 6.5-8 km inland and water extracted from the wells fall below the 1,000 ppm limit.
73 Final Report
La Mision potential Water Fund investors
The primary water user in La Mision is CESPE. The remaining water use is small-scale agriculture, livestock and domestic users. Investors in a Water Fund are unlikely because of the low economic status and unavailable resources. However La Mision could be an area to target for conservation through PES to help improve the economic conditions and simultaneously protect the local ecosystem services.
5.4 Ensenada Region Resource Stakeholders and Water Users Support for Water Fund
The Ensenada Region water stakeholders are represented by many government agencies and a diverse set of water users. Analysis of the prospective engagement and support for a Water Fund has been undertaken through a variety of approaches: 1) a stakeholder workshop held in Guadalupe Valley at the Wine Museum February 19, 2013, 2) workshop questionnaire assessment of stakeholders opinions and willingness to support a Water Fund, 3) interviews with government agencies critical for establishing a Water Fund 4) data collection and analysis of prior survey research (Guadalupe Valley survey) and, 5) on-going communication with key informants. Table 5-6 lists the categories, entities and interests important for establishing a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region.
74 Final Report
Table 5-6. Water resources stakeholders and water user's interests.
Sector Key Stakeholders Categories
Entities Interests
Public
Water Service Provider CESPE, Water committees, Ejidos Universal water coverage and improvement in sanitation
Federal CONAGUA, SAGARPA, Secretaría de Fomento Agropecuario (SEFOA), Comisión Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR), Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP), Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) Pago por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos (PSAH), Fondo Mexicano por la Conservación de la Naturaleza
Universal access to water services, clean water bodies, water supply and demand balance, protection from flood and other natural disasters
State CEA, CONAGUA (Mexicali), Secretaria de Desarrollo Económico de Baja California (SEDECO Ensenada), Secretaría de Desarrollo Social (SEDESOL)
Efficiency in water management, sustainable socio-economic development
Regional Organisma de Cuenca, Consejo de Cuenca Regional integration of water management; stakeholder participation and collaboration
Municipal CONAGUA (Ensenada), Comité de Planeación para el Desarrollo Municipal (COPLADEM), Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación (IMIP), Consejo de Desarrollo Económico de Ensenada A.C. (CODEEN)
Water infrastructure development and water resource planning;
Watershed Associations
COTAS Guadalupe, Maneadero, Aquifer equilibrium, equitable information sharing groundwater use monitoring
Agriculture associations
Comité Estatal del Sistema Producto Vid; Sistema Producto Flor; Comité PROVINO
Viticulture and agriculture security and expansion
Environmental NGO Pronatura Noreste, Terra Peninsular, Proestero, Centro del Agua para America Latina y El Caribe
Environmental conservation and protection
Private Water users Urban, agriculture, commercial, industry, Ejidos, Colonias; water committees
Water supply, quality; sanitation; equal access and pricing
Educational Institutions
Research centers UABC, CICESE Water balance, re-use, environmental planning, conservation
Local community
Water user advocates Grupo Madrugadores Ensenada, Defensores de la Cuenca Guadalupe
Water management transparency and collaboration; management responsible use and accountability; protection of water resources
Disadvantaged Community
Ejidos, Indigenous communities: San Antonio Necua, San Jose de la Zorra; Water User Groups
Equitable access to water resources; representation
International Cooperation
International lenders World Bank, Interamerican Development Bank
Adherence to loan agreements; economic growth and sustainability objectives
75 Final Report
5.5 Ensenada Region Workshop
The purpose of the workshop was to identify key players and explore the interest and potential support for a Water Fund as a way to address water resources management issues in the Ensenada Region. Local stakeholders, whose support is crucial in approving and carrying out new projects and schemes, were invited to attend a workshop where the Water Fund concept was presented. The stakeholders that attended the workshop represented city and regional planning, state water commission (CEA), the state water service provider (CESPE), the federal ministry of agriculture (SAGARPA), local watershed citizen-based association (COTAS Guadalupe, Maneadero and Ojos Negros), viticulture and flower associations, local industry representative (CANACINTRA), environmental NGO’s, academia (UABC, CICESE), winery representatives, eco-tourism provider and other private interest group. Figure 5-7 maps stages of stakeholder involvement in an Ensenada Region Water Fund. This is a first approximation based on the questionnaires, interviews and review of documents for this pre-feasibility assessment. These stakeholders are referenced in Table 5-6. The beginning exploratory phase involves stakeholders with the greatest influence and interest such as government agencies and potential investors. In the subsequent phases, as the Water Fund scheme takes shape, other stakeholders are integrated into the process as it fits their interests and capacity for involvement. The pre-feasibility assessment workshop could be considered a preview for the first phase of stakeholder involvement.
Low
H
igh
Influ
ence
Influ
ence
Low interest High interest
COPLADEM, SAGARPA, CODEEN, CAMARA Mexicana CANACINTRA, SEFOA, SEDECO, CONANP
CONAGUA, CEA, CESPE, Consejo de Cuenca BC, COTAS Guadalupe and Maneadero, Agriculture associations, CONAFOR, IMIP, Municipal and State governments
CDI, CILA, COLEF, CONAZA, CONABIO, Consejo Viticola Mexicano, UABC, private sector, Terra Peninsular
PROFEPA, SEDESOL, INECC, Sistemas Productos Vid y Flor, Ejidos, Indigenous communities, INIFAP, Water Interdisciplinary group
Level of interest and influence in establishing a Water Fund
Figure 5-7 Key Stakeholder involvement in establishment of a Water Fund
5.5.1 Workshop questionnaire Outcomes
A short questionnaire was filled out by workshop participants to 1) ascertain opinions and concerns in relation to water resource management in the Ensenada Region 2) determine whether or not a Water Fund would help improve conditions 3) identify how stakeholders were willing to provide support and 4) identify other stakeholders important in establishing a Water Fund. Figure 5-8 and 5-9 display some questionnaire results. In general, interest and support in a Water Fund was received positively.
5.5.2 Existing water management
Results of the workshop questionnaire show that most workshop participants believe that a Water Fund would improve current water management. Figure 5-8 illustrates that the opinions about the effectiveness of existing water management ranged from half stating that management is average to 42% stating that water resources are managed poorly. Over half (56%) of stakeholders
76 Final Report
expressed that water is managed unfairly and the remaining 42% were neutral. Most (73%) agreed that scientific knowledge of water resources was pretty good.
Figure 5-8. Stakeholder opinions about water management.
5.6 Stakeholder Water Fund support
Figure 5-9 illustrates that of the 26 stakeholders at the workshop and interviewed later on, 92% stated that they thought a Water Fund would make some improvements and 69% stated that a Water Fund would be a definite improvement in the Ensenada Region management of water resources. Stakeholders responded positively to all proposed methods of supporting a Water Fund depending on their role in water resource management either as a government official, NGO representative, water user, among others. Figure 5-9 shows that most stakeholders were willing to provide technical information (19) and many were willing to improve water management. The political stakeholders or those that have political connections were willing to give political support. Stakeholders were also willing to financially support a Water Fund either through initial investments or matching funds. Although there appears to be a low number of willing investors, many of the stakeholders were there as representatives and not necessarily as potential investors. Most stakeholders in a position to offer endowments for the fund stated in the questionnaire that they were willing to do so.
77 Final Report
Figure 5-9 Workshop questionnaire results. Number of respondents answering yes in each option.
5.6.1 Political support for a Water Fund
Responses to the workshop questionnaire gave a cursory indication of political views and potential support for a Water Fund scheme. In general, the response has been positive; political stakeholders are willing to provide approval support, financial funds and technical assistance and information. The Mexican government is in general supportive of management approaches that employ economic incentives as it fits with the decentralized policy model and neoliberal approach of water resource governance. The implementation of the program Payment for Hydrological Services (Pago por Servicios Hidrologicos Ambientales—PSAH) is evidence of the federal government’s commitment and support of programs that support the economic principle of ‘water user pays’. In addition, there is room in water management policy for NGO based programs that establish watershed based investments demonstrated by the Mexican Fund for Environmental Conservation (El Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza). These programs are described in more detail below. The Mexican government through the national forestry commission (CONAFOR) has established a fund supported with water user fees for the payment for hydrological services program (Pago por Servicios Hidrologicos Ambientales--PSAH). The programs have been successfully established in mostly forested areas in Chiapas and Cancun as a mechanism to address water sedimentation problems caused by deforestation. The PSAH program is the largest payment for environmental services (PES) program in Latin America with 1.5 million ha enrolled. While there are some efficacy concerns regarding the sites selected for the program as not the most critical areas for conservation, it is clear that the Mexican government is willing to provide backing for conservation initiatives especially that incorporate economic incentives such as PES programs.
78 Final Report
A Mexican based NGO, the Mexican Fund for Environmental Conservation El Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza A.C. (FCMN) has a program Ciudades y Cuencas which also supports the PES model to fund conservation efforts in watersheds that provide water supply to cities (Chapter 2 above). The existence of this program and PSAH is evidence of the Mexican and sub-national governments support of conservation programs especially those that include socio-economic benefits.
5.7 Water user support for Water Fund—evidence from Guadalupe Valley survey
Results from a 2011 household survey with more than 150 local water users in Guadalupe Valley informed the assessment of water user practices and attitudes pertaining to water resource management in the valley and Ensenada Region in general. Responses to the Guadalupe Valley survey are used as a proxy for water user opinions and practices for the other watersheds part of this study.
5.7.1 Opinions about management
The majority (60%) of Guadalupe Valley water user survey respondents are concerned about groundwater availability and dropping water levels. Most (65%) Guadalupe Valley respondents do not trust the government to conserve and protect water resources. Many of the water users interviewed are concerned about existing water management, 43% state that they think water is managed poorly, 27% believe it is sufficient, 15% think water is managed well and the remaining 11% don’t know. The majority (81%) also believes that technical education and information need to be improved.
5.7.2 Conservation attitudes
Results show a consensus (87%) on the importance of water conservation improvements in management. 80% of respondents interested in participating in a local water association were willing to do so if a focus was water conservation. There is a general conservation consciousness and practice—52% use drip irrigation, 35% dry farm and 34% irrigate at night.
5.7.3 Collaboration and water governance
A large majority (87%) stated that collaboration is needed to make improvements in water resource management. However there are conflicting beliefs regarding community trust and responsible use. Sixty percent of respondents believe that other water users are not cooperating in improving groundwater resources. And 48% of water users trust the local community to conserve and protect water resources yet a large percentage (40%) do not trust their community. There is interest in participating in local groups concerned about water resource issues; 31% of Guadalupe Valley respondents participate in local groups that discuss water related topics indicating interest and cooperation in community action. Benefits and Costs of a Water Fund The objectives of a Water Fund are developed through collaboration of key stakeholders and water users. The distribution of Water Fund benefits depends equaling representation and inclusion in planning and decision-making. These processes may overlook marginalized communities and favor the interests of Water Fund investors who are likely more economically
79 Final Report
advantaged and powerful. In addition, because of the immediate need to increase water supply (e.g. infrastructure development) a conflict of interests may develop between upper watershed conservation and urban water demand. Given the regional interest in conservation approaches to water management18 the following sections will address conservation outcomes of a Water Fund.
Ejidos and Water Fund conservation
As previously discussed, the multiple interests involved in a Water Fund can potentially be at risk of more powerful and vocal interest groups dominating the objectives and outcomes of the Water Fund. shows the Ensenada Region water resources stakeholders and interests that may be addressed through a Water Fund. The inevitable imbalance power and influence over water resources management may override interests of the less advantaged communities in the region and hence the opportunity of a water fund to foster more egalitarian management. Indeed collaboration with ejidos and indigenous communities and equal representation of the interests of disadvantaged communities is important for achieving water management goals. Inclusion of disadvantaged groups can be mutually beneficial; Ejidos and indigenous lands comprise a significant proportion of undeveloped land and consequently a target for future development. Figure 5-10 displays the proportion of ejido land that is undeveloped within the Ensenada Region. If conservation and restoration is a Water Fund objective, then the cooperation and enrollment of the local ejidos and other small landowners as providers of environmental services may benefit a Water Fund. A PES program could be also beneficial to landowners facing increasing costs and dwindling resources. For example, most land (73%) enrolled in the PSAH program belongs to ejido landowners demonstrating the important role ejidos play in conservation initiatives like a Water Fund. Compensating ejido and other disadvantaged communities for environmental services may increase social participation and provide an additional source of income in these often small-scale agricultural production systems (Alix-Garcia et al., 2005).
18 Evidence extrapolated from Guadalupe Valley water user survey results.
80 Final Report
Figure 5-10 Ejidos, undeveloped areas and protected areas in the Ensenada Region.
5.7.4 Watershed conservation and cultural heritage enhancement
Upper watershed conservation benefits include ecosystem services improvements such as soil retention, biodiversity protection, wild animal refuge, oxygen generation and climate change mitigation. Another potential benefit of a Water Fund is cultural heritage preservation through the enhancement of the material culture of local indigenous groups. Protection and restoration of native flora used in basket weaving and other cultural uses can have economic benefits for disadvantaged indigenous communities who sell locally produced goods to tourists. In addition to environmental and cultural benefits, a conservation activities such as reduced net water use, soil protection, reforestation and designation of conservation areas of a Water Fund, may fortify the efforts to protect natural areas already with protected status in the Ensenada Region. Figure 5-10 shows the protected areas that are hydrologically-connected to the aquifers discussed in this study and that are important to consider in future assessments especially the protected areas in the upper watersheds that are critical for aquifer recharge. Sierra Juarez Forest Reserve is the most crucial protected area for all four aquifers. Sierra de San Pedro Martir Forest Reserve and Estero Punta Banda (RAMSAR) are other protected areas located just outside of the study area.
5.7.5 Groundwater quality
Groundwater quality is a concern for agriculture and domestic users in areas impacted by seawater intrusion and high salinity contamination in irrigated areas. Reliability of future water supply is crucial for economic survival and future development particularly for agriculture, industry and commercial sectors. As population grows the lower priority users will have restricted use. Investment in infrastructure to expand water supply is thus an overarching focus. Plans for
81 Final Report
environmental impact and ecosystem valuation studies are persistently ‘delayed’ due to lack of financial backing and more immediate and critical threat of water supply shortage.
5.8 Summary and Conclusion
Analysis of the Ensenada Region water resource stakeholders shows the diversity of water users that center on urban and agricultural uses and the constraints of groundwater resources that may be improved through a Water Fund. The chapter gives an overview of the integral stakeholders in the establishment and development of a Water Fund and the potential for support. Compensating ecosystem service providers upstream like ejidos and other small land ownerships for recharge-enhancing land and water use practices may reduce pressure on the Ensenada Region aquifers, improve social participation and provide some income in less developed areas. An evaluation of the benefits and costs of a Water Fund require careful accounting of the potential actions in the Ensenada Region that can help augmenting groundwater recharge. Costs of these actions and net gains in recharge will determine economic and financial feasibility of a Water Fund. The Ensenada Region’s current water supply sources are declining. These supply issues along with groundwater saline intrusion in the coastal aquifers and residential rural areas are pressing concerns for the region’s water users and policymakers. Investment in the areas’ ecosystem services has been neglected due to the historic challenges of water scarcity and the growing population. A Water Fund for the Ensenada Region presents an opportunity to fill this gap by addressing water supply enhancement through a watershed conservation approach.
82 Final Report
Chapter 6 Opportunities and Challenges for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region.
This Chapter summarizes opportunities and impediments for Water Fund in the Ensenada Region considering infrastructure, governance and stakeholder interactions in the study area.
6.1 Opportunities for a Water Fund
Water management circumstances in the Ensenada Region provide opportunities to protect and maintain ecosystem services, improve water supply reliability and quality, and support economic activity and development into the future. Current legislation and regional plans allow for local involvement in planning and management of water resources and improvement of financing of the water sector. The main areas in which a Water Fund could be beneficial are:
1. Protection of ecosystem services provided by the mountain coastal range, which contribute to headwaters of local stream flows and aquifer recharge. Some of the alternatives include:
a. Improvement of land and water use practices in the ejido and other privately owned land in the foothills. Activities may include reforestation with native species, enhance protected area and improved soils management to increase subsurface, surface flow and aquifer recharge.
b. Artificial aquifer recharge to reduce pressure on coastal and inland aquifers with reclaimed water
c. Irrigation of foraging crops with reclaimed water d. Reductions of net water use by improving water use efficiency or scheduled
fallowing programs, without expanding irrigated land areas. 2. Provide a venue for discussion and coordination among stakeholders, government
agencies and other groups for implementing water management actions to improve water supply reliability and quality for the coastal and inland aquifers.
3. Serve as a transparent venue for pooling resources and employing financial resources for sustainable water use and conservation projects in the Ensenada Region with a high degree of local involvement.
Sufficient legal and economic conditions exist in the region to establish formal Water Funds similar to those established elsewhere in the country. Our surveys from the stakeholder workshop indicate that most participants think that a Water Fund could be useful and would be willing to contribute political, technical and financial support to that effort. One of the biggest areas of opportunity is taking advantage of the new paradigm in funding water resources projects from the bottom up. Establishments of trust funds for conservation is possible and is already occurring elsewhere in Mexico.
83 Final Report
6.2 Challenges for a Water Fund
Establishing a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region is not without challenges. Although legislation favors decentralization of water management in Mexico and the Ensenada Region, in practice this does not happen, at least in an organized way. The Watershed Organizations, do not participate actively in planning of water management and lacks financial autonomy. Thus more often than not, objectives of regional and local water plans prepared by the CONAGUA central office, do not fully address concerns from local groups and stakeholders. In addition, the revenue collecting scheme for the water sector does not fully tie locally generated revenues to regional actions. Thus regional plans are not financially self-supported and a scheme of incentives to address federal regional plan’s objectives and goals do not exist. This undermines the good intentions in the regulations for a pluralist policy and implementation. Thus it is critical to involve the CONAGUA early in the process of conducting assessments and looking ahead into planning of Water Funds for the Ensenada Region. Synergies exist for projected and ongoing Water Fund-like efforts in the Ensenada Region. However, it is important to identify conflicting requirements or restrictions in these efforts that might affect transparency and the independent character of a Water Fund. Parallel programs may create rivalries, or specialization at best that might not be additive in protecting ecosystem services and water supply in the Ensenada Region. Mindful and strategic partnerships with other efforts might be helpful. More research is needed in hydrologic modeling and economic analysis of water supply and demand in the region to assess the economic value of moving water from the generating areas in the mountain coastal range to end users in cities and agriculture. Furthermore, the area of influence of future assessments for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region should be expanded to include neighboring watersheds such as Ojos Negros and the full sub basins that contribute to headwaters in surface streams and recharge to aquifers in the Ensenada Region. Also, a comprehensive financial analysis is needed to estimate costs of establishing and operating a Water Fund. Finally, periodic meetings with an established work group of potential participants is encouraged to set and refine objectives of a Water Fund for the Ensenada Region.
6.3 A practical approach for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region
This subsection provides a summary of how a Water Fund effort could help address water-related problems in the Ensenada Region. This is not a comprehensive feasibility assessment of a Water Fund but instead provides a road map for further study. For that end we employ the summary in Table 6-1 below. Table 6-1. Summary of preliminary Water Fund findings for the Ensenada Region.
Ensenada Region water problems The Ensenada Region faces the water challenges of a well-developed yet semi-arid area, where water supply must cope with population growth, high-value agriculture, and mid-size commercial and industrial activity. 1 Water supply reliability. Growing population increases pressure on regional water
84 Final Report
resources. Regional water management plans at the federal, state and municipal level consider a fair range of alternatives including a desalination facility, reducing system losses, water conservation, wastewater reuse, and connection to the Tijuana-Colorado River aqueduct.
2 Aquifer overdraft and Saline Intrusion. Current demands and over-allocation of water use rights pose a serious challenge to resource sustainability. Buyback of water use rights and regularization of users and aquifer management plans through COTAS are some strategies in place. Aquifer recharge with recycled wastewater and enhancing natural recharge through land and water management practices in the valley and mountains should be considered.
3 Saline intrusion. Saline intrusion in coastal aquifers impairs groundwater use and increases treatment costs. Increasing natural recharge in affected aquifers and implementing artificial recharge can prevent water quality degradation.
4 Institutional inefficiencies. Integrated regional water management planning and its implementation are in their early stages. Regional water management needs to more thoroughly address local concerns and gain financial self-sufficiency. Local involvement and governance are essential.
Problems a Water Fund could help with A Water Fund for the Ensenada Region cannot address all large water management problems and is not a substitute for current planning efforts. However, a Water Fund can serve as a venue for incremental steps towards a more organized and socially-equitable water management discussion with some incremental steps to address the region’s water problems. 1 Land and water use practices to enhance groundwater recharge. Improvement of
land and water use practices in the ejido and privately owned land particularly in the foothills might improve aquifer recharge. Activities might include reforestation with native species, enhance protected area and improved soils management to increase subsurface, surface flow and aquifer recharge. Research is needed to identify potential restoration sites, water recharge gains and losses, and costs.
2 Artificial aquifer recharge. Participation in aquifer reclaimed water recharge pilot programs. A Water Fund might help coordinate efforts between the water utilities, stakeholder and other agencies and interest groups. Water banking potential could be explored.
3 Irrigation of forage crops with reclaimed water. A Water Fund could help coordinate efforts for use of reclaimed water in irrigation. Some economic incentives for farmers and a revenue generating scheme to fund these projects could improve continuity and engagement of all involved parties.
4. Water conservation. Agriculture in the Ensenada Region is generally sophisticated with drip or other low water use irrigation system. Thus the potential of further conservation in agriculture is limited and might actually decrease aquifer recharge if it results in farmers increasing irrigated areas. Urban water conservation may have some areas of improvement by reducing system losses and total residential water use, the largest water user in the urban areas. Many infrastructural improvements are already taking place as part of municipal plans. However, a Water Fund may improve overall outreach efforts to reduce residential water use and help designing an appropriate scheme of incentives for conservation.
Likely investors and their motivation in a Water Fund CONAGUA A main provider for infrastructural development. Local
involvement from a Water Fund will likely improve regional water management in the Watershed Organizations.
CEA Water conservation and increased groundwater recharge from a
85 Final Report
Water Fund program may reduce operating costs and the need for a prompt connection to the Colorado River aqueduct.
CESPE Water conservation and increased groundwater recharge from a Water Fund program may reduce treatment costs, operating costs from a desalination facility.
Non-Governmental Organizations
Have a presence in the region and contribute with expertise in managing conservation programs.
International Cooperation
Serve as provider of funds in a well-established framework for preserving ecosystem services.
Agricultural water users Improve irrigation practices to sustain agricultural production in the region. Large agricultural water users may also be providers of funds to a Water Fund.
Urban water users Conserve water and slow the need for large infrastructure investments partially funded by increased water fees to augment water supply.
Land owners (ejido and private)
With a compensation scheme in place, improve water and land use practices, participate in conservation projects to increase net groundwater recharge.
6.3.1 Water Management Problems for a Water Fund in Ensenada
A Water Fund is unlikely to solve the many important water issues in the Ensenada Region. However, it could help in organizing discussions on incremental steps towards reducing groundwater overdraft, improve water quality and better manage water in the region considering the institutional constraints. A Water Fund shall not be expected at least in initial stages to be able to fund infrastructure.
6.3.2 How large a Water Fund might be needed?
The size of a Water Fund will depend on the prioritization of conservation actions to take place. A cost for establishing and maintaining conservation programs in the upper basin could be a good starting point. The type of water and land use practices needed to enhance aquifer recharge in the region calls for in-depth hydrological studies. In some cases conservation efforts may not increase net recharge to aquifers (Hammersmark et al., 2010). Thus the cost and effectiveness of conservation activities, water recharge programs and other overhead should be considered in detail.
6.3.3 Funding strategy
Maintaining a Water Fund will require a match between water demands and water supply, costs of programs and activities of a Water Fund and carefully designed incentives to maintain the program. Funding sources can be found in international organizations’ global initiatives, water management programs in CONAGUA and other federal agencies, a relatively unexplored bond market and water user fees. Upstream practices affect the availability of water and the aquifers, so land owners in the foothills and valleys could be compensated for land and water use activities that net enhance recharge. A Water Fund for the Ensenada Region should have a revenue generating scheme most likely from water user fees for urban uses and agriculture to fund conservation practices with recharge-enhancing potential.
86 Final Report
Chapter 7 Summary and Conclusions
The following conclusions arise from this pre-feasibility assessment of Water Fund in the Ensenada Region:
1. The Ensenada Region that comprises the groundwater basins of Ensenada, Guadalupe, La Mision, and Maneadero provide ecosystem services including water resources that sustain population needs, agriculture and other economic activity. These ecosystem services should be protected as part of the current governmental plans and locally raised conservation initiatives without great conflict.
2. Water resources management in Mexico faces infrastructural, institutional and financial challenges. These are recognized in planning documents, and CONAGUA and its regional branches are working to address them. State commissions in charge of urban water supply work likewise. Nevertheless there is a need to coordinate planning and funding to embrace and financially sustain local initiatives.
3. Water issues in the Ensenada Region include aquifer overdraft, over allocation of water use concessions, saline intrusion and a poor institutional infrastructure to address these problems in organized manner. Hence the opportunities for a Water Fund to help are present.
4. Ecosystem services can coexist with current and future development in the Ensenada Region. Key areas to target with a Water Fund are protection of land practices and the basins that contribute headwaters and recharge to aquifers, water quality in the aquifers, and augmentation of water supply via water use efficiency, demand reduction, or sustainable water supply sources.
5. The stakeholder potential support, the legal infrastructure, and the economic context for a Water Fund in the Ensenada Region exist.
6. Involvement of stakeholders and especially the CONAGUA through workgroups is fundamental and encouraged in the early states of the process.
7. More research is needed on how the stakeholder, legal and economic trio can be formalized in a Water Fund, in the areas if hydrologic modeling, economic and financial analyses, creation of work groups and drafting bottom up initiatives and objectives in a fund.
87 Final Report
Acknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the federal and state agencies that have provided data and time through personal communications to prepare this pre-feasibility assessment, these include: CONAGUA, SAGARPA, CEA, CESPE, SPA, COTAS Maneadero and Guadalupe and others. This report was funded by The Nature Conservancy.
88 Final Report
References Aguas de Ensenada S. A. de C. V. (2012). Manifiesto de Impacto Ambiental. Modalidad
particular del proyecto. Captación y desalación de agua de mar, su potabilización, conducción, y entrega de 250 l/s y la disposición del agua de rechazo, en el Municipio de Ensenada, Baja California. <http://sinat.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bc/estudios/2012/02BC2012HD08.pdf>
Alix-Garcia, J., De Janvry, A., Sadoulet, E., Torres, J.M., Braña-Varela, J., Zorrilla-Ramos, M., 2005. An assessment of Mexico's payment for environmental services program, Roles of Agriculture Project Environmental Services. . Agricultural and Development Economics Division (ESA) of the FAO.
Calvache, A., Benitez, S., Ramos, A., 2012. Fondos de Agua: Conservando la infraestructura Verde. Guia de Diseño, Creación y Operación. The Nature Conservancy, Fundación FEMSA y Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo: Bogotá, Colombia, p. 144.
Comision Estatal de Servicios Publicos de Ensenada (CESPE), 2013. Indicadores de Gestion Zona Urbana. Comision Estatal del Agua de Baja California.
Comision Estatal del Agua de Baja California (CEA), 2013. Programa Estatal Hidrico 2008-2013. Estado de Baja California.
Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), 2009a. Actualización de la Disponibilidad Media Anual de Agua Subterránea Acuífero (0207) Guadalupe, Estado de Baja California, Diario Oficial de la Federación. Publicada 28 Agosto 2009. Comision Nacional del Agua: Mexico, D.F.
Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), 2009b. Programa Hidraulico Regional 2007-2012. Region I Peninsula de Baja California.
Comision Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), 2011. Estadisticas del Agua en México. <TNC Report 13 June 2014_jma.docx,
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), 2007. Plan de Manejo Integrado de las Aguas Subterranes en el Acuífero de Guadalupe, B.C. Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA).
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), 2012. Programa Hidrico por Organismo de Cuenca, Peninsula de baja California Vision 2030.
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA), NA. Plan de Manejo Integral para el Acuífero de Maneadero. Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA),.
CONAFOR-CONACYT, 2007. Programa Regional Hidrologico Forestal para la region I, Peninsula de baja California. Fondo Sectorial. Comision Nacional Forestal.
Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO), 2013. Proyecciones de la Población de México 2005-2030. Consejo Nacional de Poblacion (CONAPO).
89 Final Report
Daesslé, L.W., Mendoza-Espinosa, L.G., Camacho-Ibar, V.F., Rozier, W., Morton, O., Van Dorso, L., Lugo-Ibarra, K.C., Quintanilla-Montoya, A.L., Rodríguez-Pinal, A., 2006. The hydrogeochemistry of a heavily used aquifer in the Mexican wine-producing Guadalupe Valley, Baja California. Environmental Geology 51 151-159.
Daesslé-Heuser, LW, Pérez MA, Licona, A, Mendoza-Espinosa, LG, Serrano J, Violante E, Manjarrez, E, Reynoso-Cuevas, L, Obregón, C, Lugo, K. (2011). An interdisciplinary study of a coastal aquifer under the perspective of its overexploitation and recharge with treated wastewater. IWA’s 8th International Conference on Water reclamation and Reuse, Barcelona, España, 26-29 September.
Proyectos, Estudios y Consultoría. S.A. de C.V. Definición de Nuevas Fuentes de abastecimiento
para las zonas Urbanas del Norte del Estado de Baja California. Tomo 1, Diciembre, 1996.
Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza (FMCN), 2013. Cities and watersheds.
Hammersmark, C.T., Dobrowski, S.Z., Rains, M.C., Mount, J.F., 2010. Simulated Effects of Stream Restoration on the Distribution of Wet-Meadow Vegetation. Restoration Ecology 18(6) 882-893.
Hammersmark, C.T., Rains, M.C., Mount, J.F., 2008. Quantifying the hydrological effects of stream restoration in a montane meadow, northern California, USA. River Research and Applications 24(6) 735-753.
Ibarra, I.A., 2005. Desarrollo hidrogeológico de hidrogeoquímico del Acuífero de la Misión, Baja California. . Masters Thesis Universidad Autónoma de Baja California: Ensenada, Baja California.
Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación de Ensenada (IMIP), 2010. Programa Integral del Agua del Municipio de Ensenada, B.C. (PIAME). Instituto Municipal de Investigación y Planeación de Ensenada (IMIP),: Ensenada, Baja California.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI), 2009. Censos Económicos 2009. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI),: Mexico, D.F. <TNC Report 13 June 2014_jma.docx,
Instituto Nacional de Estadística Geografía e Informática (INEGI), 2013. Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática (INEGI),: Mexico, D.F. <TNC Report 13 June 2014_jma.docx, (April 2013).
Mendoza-Espinosa, L. G. and Daesslé-Heuser, W. (2012). Maneadero Aquifer, Ensenada, Baja California, Mexico. 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse. United States Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA/600/R-12/618.
Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2010. Financing Water
Resources in Mexico. Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),: Paris, France.
Organization for the Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2013. Making the Water REform Happen in Mexico, OECD Studies on Water. OECD Publishing: Paris, France.
90 Final Report
Porras, I., Neves, N., 2008. A review of Payments for Watershed Services in Developing Countries, Natural Resources Issues No. 11. International Institute for Environment and Development: London, U.K.
Ramírez-Hernández J., C. Carreón D., H. Campbell R., R. Palacios B., O. Leyva C., L. Ruiz M., R. Vázquez G., P. Rousseau F., R. Campos G., L. Mendoza E. y J. A. Reyes L. (2007) Informe Final. Plan de Manejo Integrado de las Aguas Subterráneas en el Acuífero de Guadalupe, Estado de Baja California. Tomo I. Reporte Interno. Elaborado por la Universidad Autónoma de Baja California para la Comisión Nacional del Agua, Organismo de Cuenca Península de Baja California, Dirección Técnica. Convenio: SGT-OCPBC-BC-07-GAS-001.
Registro Público de los Derechos de Agua (REPDA), 2013. Consulta a la base de datos del
REPDA. Comisión Nacional del Agua (CONAGUA): Mexico, D.F.
Reynoso-Cuevas, L., Mendoza-Espinosa, L. G. & Daesslé, L. W. (2011). Towards the implementation of planned artificial recharge in a coastal aquifer: the Maneadero case. 8th IWA ́s International Conference on Water Reclamation & Reuse, Barcelona, Spain, 26-29 September.
Salgado-Tránsito, J. A. (2010). El uso de tecnologías de la información en el desarrollo de un
plan de manejo sustentable del acuífero de valle de Guadalupe, B. C. Tesis de Doctorado. Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México.
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), 2003. Acuerdo por el que se
dan a conocer los límites de 188 acuíferos de los Estados Unidos MExicanos, los resultados de los estudios realizados para determinar su disponibilidad media anual de agua y sus planos de localización., In: SEMARNAT (Ed.): Mexico, Distrito Federal, p. 119.
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), 2006. Programa Regional de Ordenamiento Ecológico del Corredor San Antonio de Las Minas - Valle de Guadalupe. Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California, September 08, 2006.
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), 2009. Acuerdo por el que se
da a conocer la ubicación geográfica de 371 acuíferos del territorionacional, se actualiza ladisponibilidad media anual de agua subterránea de 282 acuíferos, y se modifica, para su mejor precisión,la descripción geográfica de 202 acuíferos. . Diario Oficial de la Federación, August 28, 2009.
Waller-Barrera, C., Mendoza-Espinosa, L.G., Medellin-Azuara, J., Lund, J.R., 2009. Optimización económico-ingenieril del suministro agrícola y urbano: una aplicación de reúso del agua en Ensenada, Baja California, México. Revista Ingeniería Hidráulica en México 24(4) 87-103.
White, M.D., Stallcup, J.A., Comer, K., Vargas, A., Beltran-Abaunza, J.M., Ochoa, F., 2006. Designing and Establishing Conservation Areas in the Baja California- Southern California Border Region, Report for California Department of Fish and Game. Conservation Biology Institute: Encinitas, California.
91 Final Report