The river shrinks and tensions grow; Meanwhile, water binds with oil, gas and critical minerals. Water is one of those “somethings” over which an international dispute could escalate, at any time, but this is not just any time. We live in the era of Trump: if there is a possible conflict, it is most likely that something will detonate from the White House.
Texas is experiencing a water crisis that is increasingly acute and from there will come increasing pressure towards Mexico. This situation now forces them to ration supply and in the future appears to be the most serious limitation to their growth. It is the second largest economy in the United States, only after California. Its GDP is 2.7 trillion dollars, approximately double that of Mexico. Every day, its population grows by 1,500 people.
For Texans, the water issue goes far beyond Trump’s dispute with Mexico. Locally, it is about supply for 15 million people who live in the area and the supply for agricultural producers who have seen the productivity of their fields decrease. Losses due to water shortages were $993 million in 2024, according to a study by Texas A&M University. In 2024, the last sugar mill in South Texas closed. In that year, the production of cotton, citrus and sorghum plummeted.
The producers’ problems do not end with the truce in the imposition of the 5% tariff and they will not end when Mexico delivers the water promised last week. Mexico must send 249 million cubic meters of water. Shipping began on December 15 and should conclude on January 31.
It won’t end, because water has become an existential issue for Texas. Texans feel the ravages of climate change and consider what changes they need to make in their water culture; how much they must invest to update their infrastructure and what adjustments they need to make in a regulatory framework that is extremely complex, since it has to do with a 3,000 kilometer channel. The use of water from the Bravo and Colorado rivers is regulated by three states in the United States: Colorado, New Mexico and Texas. To that we must add what is happening with Mexico, on the other side of the border. Here we have a National Water Commission and local irrigation districts.
In Texas, they think that the 1944 agreement with Mexico should be modernized and include more precise definitions of emergency situations that prevent the delivery of water. The drought is real and occurs on both sides of the border. How should the sacrifices imposed by water scarcity be distributed? Along the same lines, they seek investment commitments from the Mexican side, related to the collection, use and reuse of water.
Texas is planning to make huge investments. Last November, they approved a $20 billion plan for water infrastructure works. These will be exercised in the next two decades. Half of the money will go to developing “new water,” linked to desalination plants and the exploration and connection of new sources. The other half will go to repair existing infrastructure, with an emphasis on pipelines that leak billions of liters each year.
What will Mexico do? Between now and January 31, deliver the 249 million cubic meters that we promised. Later, we’ll see. The most pressing questions are where the water will come from and how it will affect the supply of some towns and irrigation districts. There is justified concern in Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas. We can rule out a climate miracle that solves the drought; Therefore, we must consider how we make more efficient use of water. President Sheinbaum has referred to this several times. We have a reformed Water Law, which grants greater powers to the National Water Commission and a growing awareness of the importance of water. We also have a problem: Conagua has a budget of 36,000 million pesos for 2026. It is 4.5% less than what it had in 2025.
