There is no doubt that planet Earth is going through a critical moment due to the effects of climate change. In recent years we have witnessed various natural phenomena whose strangeness has been obvious. This seems to be already critically affecting various areas of the world. The way in which governments act to alleviate the various effects of the phenomenon known as the Anthropocene is how adverse consequences for potentially affected communities can be avoided.
A particularly worrying case in our country is that of the Mexicali Valley. It turns out that the United States government has decided to withhold a significant portion of water access to the state of Baja California in order to prevent the Colorado River on the U.S. side from drying out.
This measure, agreed upon by the International Boundary and Water Commission – a binational intergovernmental coordination body for resolving boundary disputes – will mean that, from October of this year until 2026, almost 500 million cubic meters of water will not be available in Baja California.
The most affected are mainly the producers and ejidatarios of the region due to the opacity in decision-making by the Mexican government that does not take their interests into account. As has been customary in this six-year term, it has been up to civil society itself to look after the general and particular interest. In effect, refusing to create more hydro-agricultural infrastructure in exchange for their water permits, the producers of the Mexicali Valley, with the help of the academic Alfonso Cortés Lara, from the Colegio de la Frontera Norte, have decided to make a counterproposal to the government plans called Program 90/10, according to which, they would be entitled to 54 million dollars of the total of 65 million agreed by both countries within the framework of Act 330. Being the ones directly affected, the producers’ proposal makes perfect sense, especially since their plans include the idea of using the remaining 11 million dollars to mitigate environmental impacts and the creation of hydro-agricultural infrastructure.
What stands out in this episode is the fact that decisions on such strategic and vital matters for several communities are taken behind the backs of those directly affected.
It is therefore necessary to reformulate bilateral and intergovernmental negotiation practices between Mexico and the United States at the border to take communities into account. Thinking even in global terms, this is what should happen at borders around the world in the face of the imminent effects of the Anthropocene. Perhaps the time has come to put into effect the adage of thinking globally and acting locally.
