Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Brian Jones. I'm a Rio Grande Valley farmer and represent the Texas Farm Bureau board of directors. I represent farmers and ranchers from Corpus Christi to Brownsville.
I'm here today to testify on Mexico's blatant disregard of the 1944 Water Treaty and the impacts to South Texas and farmers and ranchers.
For background, roughly 70% of the water that flows into the Rio Grande below Fort Quitman originates in Mexico. The treaty that was signed in 1944 established the International Boundary and Water Commission and prescribed how water would be shared between the two countries. In addition, it enabled construction of the Amistad and Falcon reservoirs along the Rio Grande for flood control and water storage.
The 1944 treaty requires Mexico to deliver an average volume of 350,000-acre feet of water annually to the US on five-year cycles for a total of 1.75 million-acre feet. We're halfway into the fifth year of this five-year cycle, and Mexico is over a million-acre feet behind in water deliveries, despite the US accepting nontreaty deliveries to satisfy parts of this debt.
Today, Amistad and Falcon are at critical levels. State accounting methodologies help ensure that water is available for municipal use, but very little water is available for agriculture.
What is crystal clear is that Mexico has no intention of sharing any amount of water they can capture for their own use. Since the treaty was signed 80 years ago, Mexico has constructed nine major reservoirs in the watershed. In September of 2022 tropical storms filled Mexico's reservoirs. And despite being 350,000-acre feet behind of water deliveries, at that time, Mexico held the water behind their dams, opting to use it to irrigate their own crops.
This makes the outlook going forward very bleak. The Rio Grande River system relies heavily on seasonal tropical storms, and the watershed missed those storms this last summer and fall, and most of the southwest and northern Mexico are in severe drought.
Even if it does rain, we would likely only receive water that Mexico can't capture, or water that spills over their spillways.
It's almost mathematically impossible for them to meet their obligations on this cycle.
One of the things that's not normally focused on, according to the treaty, is that Texas is to receive 1/3 of the inflows to Rio Grande to average that 350,000-acre feet. And the states of Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas are to receive the other two thirds. So, in other words, Mexico has to deliver three-million-acre feet to grant Texas the one-million-acre feet that is owed us today.
The 1944 treaty does mandate that shortfalls in one five-year cycle can be repaid in the following five-year cycle. However, the treaty does not stipulate a timeline for when those deliveries must happen. Under the US State Department's historic interpretation, Mexico could hypothetically wait until the last day of the second five-year cycle to repay that debt. The effects of this would be catastrophic for all of South Texas.
In 2024 Texas A&M AgriLife estimated that the total economic value lost to South Texas by not having irrigation water is roughly $993 million annually. As you've heard, the Rio Grande Valley sugar industry, including 600 jobs, literally dried up. That industry will not return to Texas. Texas’ iconic citrus industry and vegetable production will be next. The rest of the Valley farmers are on life support.
So, what has been done? Most of the Texas congressional delegation has signed on to legislation, resolutions and letters calling for water to be delivered to Texas. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, Congressmen Henry Cuellar, Vicente Gonzalez and Congresswoman Monica de la Cruz, have all played key roles in helping secure $280 million in disaster assistance for Rio Grande Valley farmers through the USDA. Row crop farmers like myself have filed for preventive planning through the USDA RMAs crop insurance program. And while that preventive planning program does help, it really doesn't cover my cost for the year. For the third year in a row, I'm only planning one half of my farm because of very limited irrigation water. This action repeated all throughout the Rio Grande Valley, has a ripple effect on the economy, for our crop input suppliers and for the workforce.
I'd also like to recognize the governor's office and TCEQ for Minute Order 331 that was signed in November of last year. It has allowed some farmers to use releases from the reservoirs in the Rio San Juan Basin in Tamaulipas, Mexico. While this water was not available or affordable for everyone, it did provide relief for some.
Minute 331 also has language in it that would allow Mexico to paper transfer water held in Falcon or Amistad reservoirs to Texas, thereby alleviating the need for the total inflow of the three-million-acre feet. Unfortunately, this is not a new problem, but it's getting worse.
The bottom line is that relying on a foreign country for water is not a great water supply strategy. Actions must be taken to force compliance with the treaty.
Some people will say this is a federal issue and not a state issue, but we disagree. We think it's very appropriate for the state of Texas to be engaged. We believe Texas has a vested interest in this issue beyond just the effect it is having on Texans.
As you know, under the Texas Water code, any water in the Texas water course is property of the state, including water that comes from outside the boundaries of our state. So, in our opinion, Mexico is not just depriving Texans in the Rio Grande Valley of water. Mexico is depriving the state of Texas its property under the treaty.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the committee with testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Editor’s Note: The above commentary was provided by Brian Jones at a hearing of the Texas Senate Committee on Water, Agriculture and Rural Affairs on March 10, 2025. Jones is a Rio Grande Valley farmer and represents the Texas Farm Bureau board of directors. On the TFB board he represent farmers and ranchers from Corpus Christi to Brownsville.
