The Rio Grande is 1,896-mile long, the fifth longest river in the United States

The Rio Grande's watershed encompasses 335,000 square miles. It drains more than 40,000 square miles in Texas alone.

A 1,250 mile segment of the river forms the international boundary between Mexico and the United States.

The Rio Grande begins in the Colorado mountains, courses through New Mexico, forms the border between Texas and Mexico, and flows into the Gulf of Mexico.

Historically, the river flowed continuously from Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico until the early 1900s when construction of dams, channelization, human consumption, and landuse practices altered the flow of the river.

At present, the Upper Rio Grande virtually stops in El Paso/Ciudad Juarez and resumes significant flows at the confluence with the Rio Conchos 250 miles downstream.

Its principal tributaries are the Pecos, Devils, Chama, and Puerco rivers in the United States, and the Conchos, Salado, and San Juan in Mexico.

The principal cities along the river are Santa Fe, Albuquerque, Socorro, Truth or Consequences, Mesilla, and Las Cruces in New Mexico; and El Paso, Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Rio Grande City, McAllen, and Brownsville in Texas.

In Mexico the principal cities are Ciudad Juárez, Ojinaga, Ciudad Acuña, Piedras Negras, Nuevo Laredo, Camargo, Reynosa, and Matamoros.

The Rio Grande was listed among the nation's Most Endangered Rivers in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, and 2003.

Read From Source.

Comments (7)

It could be January before Oilman Clayton Williams will have a hearing on his plan to pump water out of Pecos County.

The City of Fort Stockton filed a motion requesting that the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District postpone the dates.

That's because a hydrology study won't be complete in time.

Fort Stockton Holdings' and Williams agreed with the request to put off the hearing until January.

A company executive says he respects that the city wants to completely analyze the study.

Comments (0)

By Steve Taylor
[Elizabeth
Elizabeth Verdecchia runs the Texas Clean Rivers Program for the Rio Grande.

MERCEDES, May 31 - High levels of bacteria in the section of the Rio Grande that runs through Brownsville and Matamoros remains a concern for the International Boundary and Water Commission.

The issue will be discussed at the next meeting of the IBWC’s Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum, which takes place Tuesday, June 8, at the Commission’s office in Mercedes.

At the meeting, the IBWC’s Environmental Protection Specialist, Elizabeth Verdecchia, will provide an overview of water quality in the Lower Rio Grande as well as discuss current and future water quality monitoring and outreach activities through the Texas Clean Rivers Program for the Rio Grande Basin. Verdecchia runs the Texas Clean Rivers Program for the Rio Grande.

In a media advisory about the citizen’s forum, the IBWC acknowledged that “bacteria levels remain a concern in the Brownsville area.” The advisory points out that the IBWC and the University of Texas at Brownsville have completed the first phase of an intensive bacteria study of the Rio Grande in the Brownsville area. UTB’s Dr. Elizabeth Heise will provide preliminary results of the study at Tuesday’s meeting.

“We hope the study will help us get a better understanding of what's causing the high bacteria levels,” Verdecchia said. “We hope people will come to the June 8 meeting to learn more about water quality and to let us know of any concerns they have.”

The section of the Rio Grande that runs through Brownsville/Matamoros has been listed by the state of Texas as impaired for contact recreation since monitoring began in 1996.

E.coli bacteria is used to indicate whether a river is meeting its designated use for contact recreation, and the Texas Surface Water Quality Standard for contact recreation is 126 colonies per 100 milliliters. At one of the stations in this study, (Rio Grande at Brownsville, TCEQ ID# 13177), e.coli values collected from 2001 to 2009 have an average of 750 colonies per 100 milliliters.

In an e-mail to the Guardian, IBWC spokeswoman Sally Spener said that while high bacteria levels may be a concern for recreational users of the river, water taken from the river for drinking purposes is treated for bacteria. Therefore, Spener said, tap water is not affected. The cause of the high bacteria is unknown, and IBWC’s intensive monitoring study is designed to understand the bacteria contamination and its potential sources, she said.

Brian R Smith, regional medical director for the Texas Department of State Health Services, told the Guardian that he has not heard anything about the Brownsville section of the Rio Grande having higher bacteria counts than sections further north.

“I doubt that they do, but bacterial counts in the warm water with overflow from Mexican sources is always the concern,” Smith said, pointing out that TCEQ tracks river coliforms, not the Department of State Health Services.

The IBWC’s Rio Grande Valley headquarters is located at 325 Golf Course Road in Mercedes. The June 8 meeting takes place between 4 and 6 p.m. at that office.

Spener said Clean Rivers Program staff will be available at the June 8 meeting to discuss any issues and questions the public has related to Rio Grande water quality. Copies of the CRPs 2010 Rio Grande Basin Highlights Report, with detailed water quality information, will also be available for distribution, she said.

The Rio Grande water quality studies are being carried out with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Recovery Act funds are also being used for levee construction. IBWC Civil Engineer Rod Dunlap will be at the June 8 forum to give an update on levee construction projects in Hidalgo and Cameron counties.

The projects are designed to enhance flood protection in the Valley in accordance with standards established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Dunlap’s presentation will include current project construction updates on several levee construction contracts along the Rio Grande and off-river floodways affecting the communities of McAllen, Granjeno, Hidalgo, Pharr, San Juan, Alamo, Donna, Weslaco, Mercedes, La Villa, and La Feria, Spener said.

In a related presentation, Field Environmental Monitor Wacey Hough, a contractor with H2 Environment Services, will discuss environmental issues associated with levee construction.

The presentation will discuss nesting surveys, rare and endangered plant identification and relocation, wildlife identification and relocation, coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, wetlands preservation, and storm water pollution prevention.

Lower Rio Grande Citizens Forum was established by the U.S. Section of the IBWC to “facilitate the exchange of information between the USIBWC and members of the public about Commission activities in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.”

Comments (0)

ROUND ROCK, May 24 – During a press conference in Mission recently, Gov. Rick Perry referred to the issue of ground water extraction from the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer by Clayton Williams’ company, Fort Stockton Holdings.

A proposed plan to transport water via aqua ducts to the Midland-Odessa and San Angelo metropolitan areas is an issue requiring “the wisdom of Solomon,” Perry said, in a humorous reference to a prayer meeting he had just attended.

South Texas political leaders along the Rio Grande have joined their counterparts in the Fort Stockton area in requesting a moratorium on the water extraction plans of some 41,000,000 gallons per day for the next 30 years until an independent hydro-geological study can be completed. They want assurances that the extractions would not compromise the flow of the Pecos River into the Rio Grande, an estimated flow at the confluence of some 80,000,000 gallons per day.

The border leaders have nothing to worry about, hydro geologist, Mike Thornhill told the Guardian. Based in Round Rock, Texas, Thornhill has been contracted by Fort Stockton Holdings, a Clayton Williams Company, to conduct a two-year comprehensive study to determine if the amounts requested in a Fort Stockton Holdings permit would be “in compliance” with the rules and management plan of the Middle Pecos Groundwater Conservation District.

“I will look any political leader in the eye (from Mexico or South Texas) and assure them that the requested amount of water extraction would not compromise the flow of water from the Pecos River into the Rio Grande, nor the amount of water in Amistad Reservoir,” Thornhill told the Guardian, in a telephone interview.

“Based on our studies for the area, and our research and experience over the last 22 years, I have found that there is no possible way that neighboring communities or counties could be adversely affected by the amount of pumping that Mr. Williams is requesting.”

Certainly, the Rio Grande flows cannot be affected by the permitted pumping, Thornhill said.

“The point is – if the pumping cannot be detected in the Pecos River, there is no way the pumping can be detected in the Rio Grande which is more than 100 miles away. It is impossible,” Thornhill said.

There are several scientific reasons why this is true, Thornhill explained, many of which were presented at the most recent meeting of Groundwater Management Area 7 (GMA 7).

“The simplest explanation is that Fort Stockton Holdings is asking to use the same amount of water that they are currently permitted to use, which is even less water than was pumped from FSH’s properties in the past,” Thornhill said.

“All they are requesting is a change in use – they are not requesting any new or additional water. That is, instead of watering alfalfa, they would like to transfer their water to surrounding communities who have projected shortage of water.”

Thornhill said the water will either be pumped for farming, or for the beneficial use of tens of thousands of Texans.

“Again, the amount of water will not change. So, if the amount of water pumped does not change, the impact will not change. The permits will actually ensure that pumping will not be as much in the future as it was in the past,” Thornhill said.

Many political and community based entities have expressed skepticism with Thornhill’s assessment.

Jay Johnson-Castro, of the Rio Grande International Studies Center, based in Laredo on the banks of the Rio Grande, originally brought the issue of Pecos groundwater to the Guardian. He says communities on the Rio Grande are right to be concerned about the permit.

The sister cities of Laredo, Texas and Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, the County of Hidalgo, and the Texas Border Coalition have all publicly expressed very public concern over the issue of extraction of water from the Edwards-Trinity aquifer, as well as its sale and transport to other West Texas metro areas. They are calling for a moratorium on the permit for water extraction until an independent hydro-geological study can be accomplished.

Fort Stockton City Manager Rafael Castillo, in a previous interview with the Guardian, expressed concerns that the precedent for large-scale extraction from the aquifer could indeed compromise the flow of water into Amistad Reservoir and the southward flow to the millions of residents on both sides of the Rio Grande down-river from the permit area.

Thornhill doesn’t share these concerns. “This is a false alarm,” says the hydro-geologist. “There is no measurable flow into the Pecos River (that could be affected by the extraction). Moreover, the Pecos River only provides 11 percent of the water delivered to the Amistad Reservoir.”

Thornhill, a registered professional geologist, is president of the Thornhill Group based in Round Rock.

Comments (0)

Comments (0)

Click here to view resolution between the county of Hidalgo and RGISC.

Comments (0)

The IBWC traces its roots to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Gadsden Treaty of 1853, which established temporary joint commissions to survey, map, and demarcate with ground landmarks the new United States (U.S.) – Mexico boundary. The Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty of February 2, 1848 established the international boundary between the United States and Mexico. The Treaty of December 30, 1853 reestablished the southern boundary of New Mexico and Arizona to enable the United States to construct a railroad to the west coast along a southern route and to resolve a question arising from the 1848 Treaty as to the location of the southern boundary of New Mexico. The Convention of 1882 established another temporary joint commission to resurvey the western land boundary between the Rio Grande and the Pacific Ocean, rebuild the old monuments, and install additional monuments where necessary. U.S. Commissioner John Whitney Barlow and Mexican Commissioner Jacobo Blanco resurveyed the borderline and increased the number of boundary monuments from 52 to 258. This survey started at the El Paso, Texas – Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua border in 1891, and concluded at the San Diego, California – Tijuana, Baja California border in 1894. Later as border populations increased during the 1900’s, the Commission installed 18 additional boundary monuments for a total of 276.

As the settlements grew along the boundary rivers (Rio Grande and Colorado River), settlers began developing adjoining lands for agriculture. In the late Nineteenth Century, questions arose as to the location of the boundary and the jurisdiction of lands when the boundary rivers changed their course and transferred land from one side of the river to the other. As a result, the two Governments adopted certain rules to deal with such questions in the Convention of November 12, 1884.

The U.S. and Mexico established the International Boundary Commission (IBC) on March 1, 1889 as another temporary body to apply the rules that were adopted by the Convention of 1884. The IBC was extended indefinitely in 1900 and is considered the direct predecessor to the modern day International Boundary and Water Commission. The 1884 Convention was modified by the Banco Convention of March 20, 1905 to retain the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the boundary.

As border populations increased during the early to mid 1900's, the Commission was faced with many new challenges. The U.S. and Mexico used studies developed by the IBC as the basis for the first water distribution treaty between the two countries, the Convention of March 1, 1906, which allocated the waters of the Rio Grande from El Paso to Fort Quitman, an 89-mile (143 km) international boundary reach of the Rio Grande through the El Paso-Juárez Valley. This Convention allotted to Mexico 60,000 acre-feet annually of the waters of the Rio Grande to be delivered in accordance with a monthly schedule at the headgate to Mexico's Acequia Madre just above Juárez, Chihuahua. To facilitate such deliveries, the U.S. constructed, at its expense, the Elephant Butte Dam in its territory. The Convention includes the provison that in case of extraordinary drought or serious accident to the irrigation system in the U.S., the amount of water delivered to the Mexican Canal shall be diminished in the same proportion as the water delivered to lands under the irrigation system in the U.S. downstream of Elephant Butte Dam.

In the Convention of February 1, 1933, the two Governments agreed to jointly construct, operate and maintain, through the IBC, the Rio Grande Rectification Project, which straightened and stabilized the 155-mile (249 km) river boundary through the highly developed El Paso-Juárez Valley. The project further provided for the control of the river's floods through this Valley.

The IBC was also instrumental in developing the second water distribution treaty between the United States and Mexico in 1944, which addressed utilization of the waters of the Colorado River and Rio Grande from Fort Quitman, Texas to the Gulf of Mexico. The Water Treaty of February 3, 1944 expanded the duties and responsibilities of the IBC and renamed it the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC). The 1944 Treaty charged the IBWC with the application of the treaty and the exercise of the rights and obligations which the U.S. and Mexican Governments assumed thereunder and with the settlement of all disputes that were to arise under the treaty.

The 1944 Treaty provides that the jurisdiction of the IBWC extends to the limitrophe parts of the Rio Grande and the Colorado River, the land boundary between the U.S. and Mexico and to works located upon the border. Neither Section is to assume jurisdiction or control over works within the limits of the country of the other without the express consent of the Government of the latter. The works constructed, acquired or used in fulfillment of the provisions of the Treaty and located wholly within the territorial limits of either country, although these works may be international in character, they are to remain under the exclusive jurisdiction and control of the Section of the Commission in whose country the works may be situated.

Pursuant to the 1944 Treaty the IBWC has the status of an international body and consists of a United States Section and a Mexican Section. Each Section is headed by an Engineer Commissioner. Wherever there are provisions for joint action or joint agreement of the two Governments or for the furnishing of reports, studies or plans to the two Governments, it is understood that those matters will be handled by or through the Department of State of the United States and the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico. Each Government affords diplomatic status to the Commissioner, designated by the other Government. The Commission, two principal engineers, a legal adviser, and a secretary, designed by each Government as members of its Section of the Commission are entitled in the territory of the other country to the privileges and immunities appertaining to diplomatic officers. The IBWC and its personnel may freely carry out their observations, studies and field work in the territory of the other country. Each Government bears the expenses of its respective Section; joint expenses which may be incurred as agreed by the IBWC are to be born equally by the two Governments.

Of the waters of the Rio Grande, the Treaty allocates to Mexico: (1) all of the waters reaching the main channel of the Rio Grande from the San Juan and Alamo Rivers, including the return flows from the lands irrigated from those two rivers; (2) two-thirds of the flow in the main channel of the Rio Grande from the measured Conchos, San Diego, San Rodrigo, Escondido and Salado Rivers, and the Las Vacas Arroyo, subject to certain provisions; and (3) one-half of all other flows occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande downstream from Fort Quitman. The Treaty allots to the United States: (1) all of the waters reaching the main channel of the Rio Grande from the Pecos and Devils Rivers, Goodenough Spring and Alamito, Terlingua, San Felipe and Pinto Creeks; (2) one-third of the flow reaching the main channel of the river from the six named measured tributaries from Mexico and provides that this third shall not be less, as an average amount in cycles of five consecutive years, than 350,000 acre-feet annually; and (3) one-half of all other flows occurring in the main channel of the Rio Grande downstream from Fort Quitman.

The 1944 Treaty further provided for the two Governments to jointly construct, operate and maintain on the main channel of the Rio Grande the dams required for the conservation, storage and regulation of the greatest quantity of the annual flow of the river to enable each country to make optimum use of its allotted waters.

The 1944 Treaty provides that of the waters of the Colorado River there are allotted to Mexico: (1) a guaranteed annual quantity of 1.5 million acre-feet to be delivered in accordance with schedules formulated in advance by Mexico within specified limitations; and (2) any other waters arriving at the Mexican points of diversion under certain understandings. To enable diversion of Mexico's allotted waters, the Treaty provided for the construction by Mexico of a main diversion structure in the Colorado River, below the point where the California-Baja California land boundary line intersects the river. It also provided for the construction at Mexico's expense of such works as may be needed in the U.S. to protect its lands from such floods and seepage as might result from the construction and operation of the diversion structure.

In the 1944 Treaty the two Governments agreed to give preferential attention to the solution of all border sanitation problems.

The Treaty also provides that the IBWC study, investigate and report to the Governments on such hydroelectric facilities as the IBWC finds should be built at the international storage dams and on such flood control works, other than those specified in the Treaty, that the IBWC finds should be built on the boundary rivers, the estimated cost thereof, the part to be built by each Government, and to be operated and maintained by each through its Section of the IBWC.

The IBWC was instrumental in the development of the Chamizal Convention of August 29, 1963, which resolved the nearly 100-year-old boundary problem at El Paso, Texas and Juárez, Chihuahua, known as the Chamizal dispute, involving some 600 acres (243 hectares) of territory which were transferred from the south to the north bank of the Rio Grande by movement of the river during the mid-Nineteenth Century. By this Convention, the two Governments gave effect to a 1911 arbitration award under 1963 conditions. The IBWC relocated and concrete-lined 4.4 miles of the Rio Grande channel and transferred a net amount of 437.18 acres (176.92 hectares) from the north (U.S.) to the south side (Mexico) of the river.

The Treaty of November 23, 1970 resolved all pending boundary differences and provided for maintaining the Rio Grande and the Colorado River as the international boundary. The Rio Grande was reestablished as the boundary throughout its 1,255-mile limitrophe section. The Treaty includes provisions for restoring and preserving the character of the Rio Grande as the international boundary where that character has been lost, to minimize changes in the channel, and to resolve problems of sovereignty that might arise due to future changes in the channel of the Rio Grande. It provides for procedures designed to avoid the loss of territory by either country incident to future changes in the river's course due causes other than lateral movement, incident to eroding one of its banks and depositing alluvium on the opposite bank. This Treaty also charged the IBWC with carrying out its provisions.

The two Governments reached agreement for the solution of another long-standing problem regarding the quality of the Colorado River water allocated to Mexico under the 1944 Treaty, which was incorporated in Minute No. 242 of the IBWC dated August 30, 1973; and the IBWC submitted and the two Governments approved “Recommendations for the Solution of the Border Sanitation Problems,” in Minute No. 261, dated September 24, 1979, which provided that for each border sanitation problem, the IBWC would prepare a Minute that would identify the problem and the course of action for resolution. Pursuant to Minute No. 261, the IBWC subsequently concluded Minutes to address border sanitation problems at Naco, Arizona/Naco Sonora (Minute No. 273), Nogales, Arizona/ Nogales, Sonora (Minute No. 276), Laredo, Texas/Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas (Minute No. 279) and San Diego, California/Tijuana, Baja California (Minutes Nos. 283, 296 and 311), and to address the water quality of the New River at Calexico, California and Mexicali, Baja California (Minute No. 274).

Comments (1)