Lessons Learned through United State and Mexico's shared aquifers
About this Article
Contributed by: Aaron T. Wolf, Joshua T. Newton, Matthew Pritchard
Article Type(s): Analysis
Contributor Perspective(s): Academic
Article last edited 12 Feb 2013 by Amanda
Article originally added by Mpritchard
What is an ASI Article? Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case by linking a case to an ASI article. These ASI articles are protected, so that each person who creates a section retains control of their own content. Please use the discussion page for commenting on this article. Learn More
This article is linked to Transboundary Dispute Resolution: U.S./Mexico Shared Aquifers
The points below are summarized or excerpted from the Oregon State University Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD). Matthew Pritchard provided this and other summarized analysis or insights from the TFFD on behalf and with permission of the original authors. Available on-line at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu/
Lessons Learned
- Even if conditions for agreement are good, this does not guarantee that issues will be resolved.
- It is testimony to the complexity of international groundwater regimes that despite the presence of an active authority for cooperative management, and despite relatively warm political relations and few riparians, negotiations have continued since 1973 without resolution.
- Difference of opinion of federal and state governments can impede cooperation.
- After Minute 242 was agreed upon by both Mexico and the United States, the differences between the United States federal government and the government of the States bordering Mexico most likely played a role in the lack of cooperation between the two nations with regards to groundwater resources.
