This study examines the groundwater controversy in U.S.-Mexican relations and the role domestic political structures are likely to play in shaping a bilateral agreement apportioning transboundary groundwater. The study shows that waterpolicy making in the United States takes a distributive form while policy making in Mexico resembles a mobilization style of policy formation. It is argued that these dissimilar national water policy systems affect the way both nations engage the other in bilateral water disputes and are relvant to ascertaining the prospects for resolving the groundwater controversy. The study surveys the relevant hydrological, historical and economic context bearing on the groundwater dispute, then examines the moles of domestic policy making in each country. It follows with an analysis of how national differences in policy making are witnessed in previous bilateral water conflicts. Water policy patterns pertaining to the United States and Mexico respectively strongly influence the making of foreing policy in this sogere. Domestic policy making affects the manner of politization, objectives sought by each nation, and the diplomatic style seen in the adjustment of bilateral water agreements. Patterns seen in previous water conflicts, it is suggested, may obtain in the groundwater case. Nevertheless, the groundwater controversy is substantially different from earlier surface water disputs. Hydrological variation between problem situations is apt to fragment political interests in the United States. Nor is there a firm basis for approaching a settlement in international law. These conditions frustrate extrapolation of past political patterns to the groundwater situation. The study concludes analyzing various methods for resolving the groundwater conflict in light of political limitations. Of these alternatives, a case by case, ad hoc approach to settling the groundwater conflict is indicated as the most feasible approach. Attainment of a fully comprehensive groundwater treaty as now envisioned by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), is not likely to be achieved. However, formal comprehensiveness can be had by conferring on IBWC comprehensive authority to seek case by case solutions.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:arizona.edu/oai:arizona.openrepository.com:10150/191066 |
| Date | January 1982 |
| Creators | Mumme, Stephen P. |
| Contributors | Will, E., Bradley, Michael D., Nienaber, Jeanne O. |
| Publisher | The University of Arizona. |
| Source Sets | University of Arizona |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic), text |
| Rights | Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds