In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• U.S.-Mexico Groundwater Diplomacy:Lessons from the Historical Record
• Stephen P. Mumme (bio) and Elia M. Tapia-Villaseñor (bio)

Among the enduring challenges and, some would argue, the unfinished business of elaborating a comprehensive regime for managing shared waters along the U.S.-Mexico boundary, the problem of reaching bilateral agreement on groundwater looms large. The desirability of, indeed the compelling need for, such an agreement if transboundary aquifers are to be managed sustainably has long been recognized, initially addressed in the deliberations that produced the landmark 1944 Water Treaty, and formally established by binational agreement in 1973. And yet, nearly 50 years since the International Boundary and Water Commission's Minute 242 of the treaty obliquely raised the need for a comprehensive treaty on groundwater, that goal remains unrealized.

This paper aims to advance understanding of both the causes of this diplomatic impasse as well as emerging opportunities for progress toward binational management of these essential, even critical, water resources for the U.S.-Mexico border region. We first consider the history of binational diplomacy on groundwater, from the deliberations leading to the 1944 Treaty through the protracted binational dispute on salinity that generated the concerns expressed in Minute 242 in 1973. We then look at the binational discourse on groundwater since the salinity dispute to ascertain what limited progress has been made since Minute 242 was signed. We observe that a long diplomatic hiatus is broken with a few focused studies on aquifer quality and with a 2006 initiative, the U.S. Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act (TAA-Act), and the subsequent binational engagement through the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program (TAAP). We then review the diplomatic progress that is evident in Minute 242's formal commitments, the diplomacy that [End Page 362] produced the agreement, and such diplomacy as has followed in the post-1973 period, particularly that related to TAAP. These incremental and cumulative gains, we argue, have now set the stage for binational engagement on joint management of transboundary groundwater along the border.

Groundwater Diplomacy: Origins and Concerns

Binational concern with groundwater is a relatively modern affair, driven by the advent of electrically powered pumps that became available to border farms and communities in the 1930s (Mann, 1963). Groundwater is unmentioned in either the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the Gadsden Treaty establishing the basic contours of the U.S.-Mexican boundary, nor is it referenced in subsequent boundary and water agreements prior to 1944. Rapid expansion of electricity grids on both sides of the border after 1920, powered by new hydroelectric dams and coal-fired power plants generating cheap electricity, facilitated agricultural resort to underground aquifers.

Recognition of the value of border groundwater at the diplomatic level may be dated to deliberations on the 1944 Water Treaty, which commenced in earnest in 1943. To better focus on the principal surface water concerns, U.S. and Mexican diplomats deliberately set groundwater matters aside when formulating the 1944 Treaty. However, the treaty adapts to water-related challenges via interpretations or modifications (Minutes). The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) oversees the application of such Minutes, the 1944 Water Treaty, and any other issue or treaty regarding boundary demarcation and water resources in the U.S.-Mexico border region, including the contentious dispute over the salinity of Mexico's Colorado River water allotment that threatened to derail national commitment to the treaty.

Groundwater in the 1944 Water Treaty Negotiations

It is plain enough from the treaty record that the negotiators were little concerned with such groundwater pumping as existed in various localities near the international boundary with the singular exception of groundwater extraction and utilization in the lower Colorado River [End Page 363] region (Hundley, 1966; Ward, 2003). Attention focused specifically on groundwater use in two locations, near San Luis Rio Colorado and along the stretch of the recently completed All-American Canal (AAC) proximate to the international boundary. The AAC conveyed Colorado River water to the agricultural valleys of Imperial, Coachella, and Yuma and was originally built as an earth-lined canal by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the federal U.S. agency in charge of infrastructure...

中文翻译：

---

美国-墨西哥地下水外交：历史记录的教训

代替摘要，以下是内容的简短摘录：

• 美国-墨西哥地下水外交：历史记录的教训
• Stephen P. Mumme（简介）和 Elia M. Tapia-Villaseñor（简介）

在持久的挑战中，以及一些人认为的制定管理美墨边界共享水域的综合制度的未竟事业中，就地下水问题达成双边协议的问题尤为突出。如果要可持续地管理跨界含水层，那么达成这样一项协议的愿望（实际上是迫切需要）早已被人们认识到，最初在制定具有里程碑意义的 1944 年《水条约》的审议中得到解决，并于 1973 年通过两国协议正式确立。自国际边界与水委员会在条约第 242 号会议纪要中间接提出需要制定一项全面的地下水条约以来，近 50 年来，这一目标仍未实现。

本文旨在加深对这一外交僵局的原因的理解，以及在对美墨边境地区这些重要甚至至关重要的水资源进行两国管理方面取得进展的新机遇。我们首先考虑两国地下水外交的历史，从1944年条约的审议到1973年第242分钟所表达的担忧的旷日持久的两国关于盐度的争端。然后我们看看自盐度争端以来两国关于地下水的讨论以确定自第 242 号分钟签署以来取得的有限进展。我们观察到，随着对含水层质量的一些重点研究以及 2006 年的倡议、美国跨界含水层评估法案 (TAA-Act) 以及随后通过美国-墨西哥跨界含水层评估计划进行的两国参与，长期的外交中断被打破。 TAAP）。然后，我们回顾第 242 分钟正式承诺中明显的外交进展、[结束第 362 页] 达成协议的外交努力，以及1973 年之后的外交，特别是与 TAAP 相关的外交。我们认为，这些增量和累积的成果现已为两国共同管理边境跨界地下水奠定了基础。

G圆水 D外交：O问题C来源和

两国对地下水的关注是一个相对现代的事情，受到 20 世纪 30 年代边境农场和社区可用的电动泵的出现的推动（Mann，1963）。确定美墨边界基本轮廓的《瓜达卢佩·伊达尔戈条约》或《加兹登条约》均未提及地下水，1944 年之前的后续边界和水协议也未提及地下水。 边界两侧电网的迅速扩张1920年后，由新的水力发电大坝和燃煤发电厂提供廉价电力，促进了农业利用地下含水层。

外交层面对边境地下水价值的认可可以追溯到 1944 年《水条约》的审议，该条约于 1943 年正式开始。为了更好地关注主要的地表水问题，美国和墨西哥外交官在制定《水条约》时故意将地下水问题放在一边。 1944 年条约。然而，该条约通过解释或修改来适应与水有关的挑战（会议纪要）。国际边界和水资源委员会 (IBWC) 负责监督此类会议纪要、1944 年水条约以及有关美墨边境地区边界划分和水资源的任何其他问题或条约的实施，包括关于墨西哥和墨西哥盐度的争议。 #39;科罗拉多河的水分配可能会破坏国家对该条约的承诺。

1944 年水条约谈判中的地下水

从条约记录中可以清楚地看出，除了科罗拉多河下游的地下水开采和利用之外，谈判者很少关心国际边界附近各地存在的地下水抽取问题[End Page 363] 地区（Hundley，1966 年；Ward，2003 年）。人们的注意力特别集中在两个地点的地下水利用上，即圣路易斯里奥科罗拉多附近和最近竣工的全美运河 (AAC) 沿线靠近国际边界的地区。 AAC 将科罗拉多河的水输送到帝国、科切拉和尤马的农业山谷，最初是由美国垦务局 (USBR)（负责基础设施的美国联邦机构）修建的一条土衬运河……< /span>