Simulación de las garantías de abastecimiento para las demandas de agua en Mexicali, B.C.

2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Articles Simulation of the supply guarantee for the water demands in Mexicali, B.C. Simulación de las garantías de abastecimiento para las demandas de agua en Mexicali, B.C. Raymundo Rangel-Parra1, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8984- 8494 Xan Neira2, ORCID: https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-1141-6023 Jorge Dafonte3, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4305-1521 1Department of Agroforestry Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, España, [email protected] 2Department of Agroforestry Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, España, [email protected] 3Department of Agroforestry Engineering, Higher Polytechnic School, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Lugo, España, [email protected] Corresponding author: Raymundo Rangel Parra, [email protected] 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Abstract In this research work, a simulation exercise is carried out for the guarantees in the water demands in Mexicali, considering a control scenario with period from 2005 to 2018 and a future scenario with projection from 2020 to 2040. In said projections the reductions in water deliveries to Mexico stipulated in Minute 323 of the IBWC are included. The AQUATOOL water resources management software has been used, with which the guarantees in the water supply to the control scenario and in the future have been evaluated, also including a new industrial demand with an amount of up to 20 Hm3 per year. This new demand was evaluated both in the future scenario and in the control period, to simulate what could have happened if it had existed previously. The result shows that there are occasions in the control scenario in which there are some failures in the supply guarantees. The current situation of stress and pressure on water resources, added to the effects of climate change, in the Colorado River basin and especially in the city of Mexicali, make it unwise to add new demands to the system, since this intensifies competition by water resources. Keywords: Water resources management, Colorado river, AQUATOOL, supply guarantees. Resumen En este trabajo de investigación se realiza un ejercicio de simulación para las garantías en las demandas de agua en Mexicali, considerando un 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 escenario de control con periodo del 2005 al 2018 y un escenario futuro con proyección del 2020 al 2040. En dichas proyecciones se incluyen las reducciones en las entregas de agua a México estipuladas en el Acta 323 de la CILA. Se utilizó el software de gestión de recursos hídricos AQUATOOL, con el que se evaluaron las garantías en el abastecimiento de agua al escenario de control y al futuro, incluyendo también una nueva demanda industrial con una cantidad de hasta 20 Hm3 anuales. Se evaluó esta nueva demanda tanto en el escenario futuro como desde el periodo de control para simular qué podría haber pasado si hubiera existido previamente. El resultado muestra que hay ocasiones en que en el escenario de control se presentan algunos fallos en las garantías de abastecimiento. La actual situación de estrés y presión sobre los recursos hídricos, sumados a los efectos del cambio climático en la cuenca del río Colorado y en especial en la ciudad de Mexicali, hacen poco recomendable agregar nuevas demandas al sistema, ya que esto intensifica la competencia por los recursos hídricos. Palabras clave: gestión de recursos hídricos, río Colorado, AQUATOOL, garantías de abastecimiento. Received: 07/10/2020 Accepted: 02/12/2020 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Introduction The Colorado River reaches Mexico between the border limits of California and Arizona of the USA, where it crosses the Mexican territory between the cities of Mexicali and San Luis Río Colorado. The image of the Colorado River in northwestern Mexico is that of a dry riverbed for more than 50 years. However, the volume of water carried annually on the Colorado River in the US varies around 17,000 Hm3, but all the water is controlled in a dam system on the USA side. The water resources between the two countries are managed through an International Water Treaty (IWT), which establishes that Mexico is entitled to 1,850 Hm3 per year. As a result of the IWT, the International Boundaries and Waters Commission (IBWC or CILA by its acronym in Spanish) is created as a binational, multidisciplinary body in the technical-diplomatic area, which functions as a basis for the application of the agreements that are made in the meetings of the commission and that are reflected in the Minutes. From 1889 to 2017, 323 Minutes have been signed. In this way, international water management is performed in the Colorado River basin. As part of the adaptive management process of the river, both countries agree to Minutes that are annexed to the IWT. As Hinojosa-Herta and Carrillo-Guerrero (2010) comment, these Minutes generally contain specifications or topics not included in the body of the treaty per se, such as water quality, implementation of hydraulic infrastructure maintenance 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 projects, and more recently, environmental aspects. In 2017, with the socalled Act 323, a series of measures and projects have been established through a contingency and investment plan, to face the scarcity of the resource. The Colorado River is the source of life for the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico, but it has particular characteristics in the natural availability of water resources. The Colorado transboundary basin covers an area of more than 630,000 km2 where more than 85% of the volume of available water is captured in the mountains of the state of Colorado, in an area that covers only 15% of the basin in total (Adler, 2007). The volume of water carried annually in the Colorado River varies around 17 000 Hm3, however, 70% of the annual volume flows in the thaw season (May to July) (Cohen & Henges-Jeck, 2001). The total water rights assigned in the Colorado River basin (in both countries) is 21,586 Hm3 / year (Luecke et al., 1999), therefore, there is an over-allocation of water resources of approximately 27 %. These quantities do not include or consider the ecological flow. The importance of management in the river basin of the Colorado river is critical as it is in a region where rainfall is minimal in most of its territory, high average temperatures, and continuous population and economic growth. In addition, various investigations (Christensen, Wood, Voisin, Lerrenmaier, & Palmer, 2004; Ficklin, Stewart, & Maurer, 2013; USBR, 2016; Udall & Overpeck, 2017; Gautam & Mascaro, 2018) agree that climate change projections will cause increases in the average annual temperature, as well as decreases in precipitation and runoff. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Since 2000, according to data from the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR, 2019a), the levels of the Hoover dam (dam that is used as a reference level to classify the situation of the water resources in the basin) located in Lake Mead, are below 327 masl (2015-2016), considered as a condition of scarcity. This led to the IBWC signing Minute 323 in 2017, which establishes a series of measures and projects through a contingency and investment plan, to face the scarcity of the resource (CILA, 2017a). The actual availability of Colorado River water in Mexico is through the coordination of CILA from both countries and on a planned agenda based on an Annual Operating Plan (AOP). The actual year-over-year distribution of Colorado basin water for both countries is based on the future official projection of availability by the USBR. It is a report with a 24-month study with projections for January 1st of each year. The resulting annual operations for Lake Mead are reported at the AOP for Colorado River storage for the following year (CILA, 2017b). Currently, we have technological tools that allow us to automate simulation and optimization, two essential approaches to basins modeling. As mentioned by McKinney, Cai, Rosegrant, Ringler, and Scott (1999), in the simulation the behavior of water resources is simulated based on a set of rules governing water allocations and infrastructure operation, while, in optimization, allocations are optimized based on an objective function and associated constraints. The objective of this work is to carry out a simulation exercise to analyze the guarantees of water supply in the demands in Mexicali, for a 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 control scenario and another in the future. This seeks to provide a new perspective on how the technological tools available are an essential aid for water resource management. Because the real availability of water from the Colorado River to Mexico is determined each year by the USBR's AOP, this work only functions as an exercise to test water resource management and planning software, analyze results and their degree of reality, as well as identify data collection challenges for the specific Mexicali and Baja California study area. Study area Mexicali is a city with nearly one million inhabitants located in the state of Baja California (B.C.) in northwestern Mexico, on the border with the USA. The climate is warm dry, very arid, with an average annual temperature of 22.3 ºC and a very low annual rainfall estimated at 76.9 mm, which causes an almost zero natural input of water. Surface water resources arriving in Mexicali are only for the last stretch of the Colorado River route, ranging from 80 to 90 % of 1 850 Hm3 per year of the IWT. The Colorado River arrives from the USA to Mexico between the cities of Mexicali and San Luis Río Colorado, as shown in Figure 1. Other important elements for water resource management in the Mexicali 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 system include the Colorado River Aqueduct (ARCT) and the extension of the Colorado aquifer. The ARCT entered into operation in 1982, fulfilling the purpose of supplying water to the urban demand of the other cities of the state of Baja California, Tecate, Tijuana, Playas de Rosarito, and recently also Ensenada. Figure 1. Colorado River tract in the Mexican part. Source (Medellín- Azuara, Mendoza-Espinosa, Lund, Harou, & Howitt, 2009). From the volume of water of the Colorado River agreed in the IWT, 1 677.5 Hm3 is received annually by the point called Lindero Norte (LN) 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 in the Morelos Dam and 172.7 Hm3 by the point called Lindero Sur (LS) in the Sánchez Mejorada channel. Regarding underground resources in the Mexican part, water is extracted each year based on concessions from federal wells (500 Hm3) and individuals (200 Hm3) in aquifers 0210-Mexicali Valley and 2601 - San Luis Río Colorado, which is part of the Colorado aquifer. In addition, groundwater volumes are also allocated for other cities of B.C. (Tijuana, Tecate, Rosarito, and Ensenada), which are sent by the Colorado-Tijuana River Aqueduct (ARCT) with the extraction of about 148.96 Hm3 per year. Therefore, there is also an over-allocation of underground resources, with 520 Hm3 being the annual recharge of the aquifer. One important aspect is that there is currently no groundwater treaty between Mexico and the USA and that there are differences between the two countries concerning groundwater law and jurisdiction. The amounts of demands and origin of water resources in the Mexicali system are shown in Table 1, information that was collected according to the limited official data found. The largest demand is agriculture in DR-014, requiring about 90% of resources, followed by ARCT with more than 5 % and then urban demand for Mexicali (UDU_Mexicali) with approximately 2.5 %. Annual industrial and commercial demand (UDI_Mexicali) as of 2017 was estimated at 16.36 Hm3 gross resource. There are also three so-called rural demands (UDRs), which correspond to population centers located in the DR-014 agricultural area. A large amount of water intended for agricultural activity is notable, also due to the large territorial extension of DR-014. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 indirect estimate was chosen with the information of water deliveries in the LIN and LIS, since it is understood that the delivery must be based on demand. An estimate of the average water delivery per month results in a time variation factor that, multiplied by the total annual use of agricultural demand declared by Conagua (2018), calculates water use for each month. Mexicali system scenario with new water demand To assess the future scenario, new industrial demand was added to Mexicali's water flow system. The volume of 20 Hm3/year of water for production, is published by the company that requires the demand for water (on its website http://www.cbrands.mx/nuestra-historia/unidades-de-negocio). The scenarios established for the simulations consisted of a period of control with actual data of water deliveries, from 2005-2020, and a future scenario (2020-2040) with projections of reduced water deliveries for Mexico. These scenarios simulated guarantees in the supply of Mexicali's current demands and until 2040. Subsequently in another separate simulation, the new industrial demand of 20 Hm3 was added, both in the control scenario and in the future, to evaluate its behavior in a period of actual data and with data 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 projected respectively. This new demand was planned in two phases, one of 5 Hm3 and one of 20 Hm3, as this was planned the industrial operation that would start with 5 and increase up to 20. The source of supply for this new industrial demand is surface resources, as the impact on these resources can only be assessed because they are the only ones with more or less detailed information. After all, groundwater extraction data are minimal or absent. Results The scheme in Figure 2 represents in a simplified way the flow of water in the system in the city of Mexicali, since the scheme in AQUATOOL is too extensive to be represented in this document. The scheme was made with the sources of information available in reports and publications of CEABC and IBWC, as well as studies done in the USA involving the Colorado River part in Mexicali. The orientation of flow schemes has been used as found in the investigations of Medellín-Azuara et al. (2009); Howes, Burt and Feist (2012), and Carrillo-Guerrero, Glenn and Hinojosa- Huerta (2013). 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Figure 2. AQUATOOL "Simplified" Scheme for the Mexicali Water Flow System. Table 2 and Figure 3 present the monthly, average, minimum, maximum, standard deviation, and percentage of distribution of water deliveries from the Colorado River to Mexico in the period 2005-2018. A Time Variation Factor (FVT) (eq.1) is calculated to be able to calculate other demands from which only annual quantities are available, such as agricultural demand. It can be seen that in March and April it is when Mexico receives the most water and in October the least amount. 𝐹𝑉𝑇 = 𝑄𝑖     ∑𝑄𝑖    𝑛 𝑖=1 (1) 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Where "i" is the month and "n" is the total number of months "i". In this case, "Q" is the average of each month in the period 2005-2015. Table 2. Monthly statistics of water deliveries to Mexico 2005-2018 and FVT. Average monthly water deliveries to Mexico (Q) Hm3 Hm3 Hm3 Hm3 % (FVT) Month (i) Average Min Max Std.Dev. Distribution Jan 167.39 147.50 214.62 17.38 0.089 Feb 196.87 173.02 229.09 16.25 0.105 Mar 253.94 220.10 286.66 16.22 0.136 Apr 240.32 211.85 258.21 14.64 0.128 May 133.86 104.17 152.07 11.82 0.072 Jun 138.37 105.68 166.47 15.63 0.074 Jul 147.74 119.75 163.40 12.19 0.079 Aug 125.00 114.53 145.22 7.35 0.067 Sep 114.32 109.79 127.05 4.17 0.061 Oct 89.88 72.11 130.34 16.40 0.048 Nov 118.96 98.25 142.35 11.81 0.064 Dec 145.28 109.52 173.11 19.36 0.078 Total 1871.93 1 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Figure 3. Average, minimum, monthly maximum of Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico, 2005-2018. In the absence of monthly agricultural demand data, an indirect calculation has been used to determine it, using the FVT in Table 2 and multiplying it by the annual amount reported for 2015-2016 (1450 Hm3 surface and 700 Hm3 underground) in this agricultural demand according to Conagua data (Conagua, 2018). As shown in Table 3, in this way you can get a monthly distribution of agricultural demand from which no monthly data are available. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Table 3. Monthly distribution of agricultural demand in the DR-014. Month FVT in LIN and LIS deliveries Hm3 Surface Demand Hm3 underground demand Total demand DR014 Hm3 January 0.089 129.67 62.594 192.262 February 0.105 152.50 73.618 226.122 March 0.136 196.71 94.959 291.673 April 0.128 186.17 89.867 276.034 May 0.072 103.70 50.058 153.756 June 0.074 107.19 51.741 158.927 July 0.079 114.45 55.247 169.694 August 0.067 96.83 46.744 143.578 September 0.061 88.56 42.749 131.306 October 0.048 69.62 33.610 103.235 November 0.064 92.15 44.485 136.640 December 0.078 112.54 54.328 166.873 Total 1.000 1450.100 700.000 2150.100 Figure 4 presents the graph with the distributions of Mexicali's water demand (sum of urban, industrial, and rural demand), agricultural demand, and demand for the aqueduct that goes to the city of Tijuana 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 and other cities in the state of B.C. A much higher proportion of agricultural demand can be seen compared to the other two. Figure 4. Monthly demand for urban, agricultural, and ARCT Aqueduct for 2017 in Mexicali. With the specifications of the applicable reductions set out in Minute 323, the 2040 projected levels of the Hoover Dam, and the water deliveries to Mexico observed from 2005-2018, the projections of water deliveries have been estimated until 2040. Figure 5 shows the graph of the projections, where reductions would begin in October 2017 with 51 Hm3 per year, subtracted from the annual total of the duties of 1 850 Hm3, until the level of the reference dam goes up or down to the next 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 category. This first reduction means a monthly decrease of between 1.49 and 4.20 Hm3 depending on the month. Subsequently, the following additional reductions (since they are cumulative) are estimated in May 2019 with 37 Hm3 and until July 2026 that the maximum reduction stipulated in Minute 323 of 185 Hm3 would be achieved. To witness predictions of the effects of climate change on the Colorado River basin estimated by the USBR and the other studies mentioned that coincide in a decrease in the availability of water resources throughout the basin, a reduction was applied to water deliveries following the trend of the table set out in the Minute, until 2040. Water deliveries to Mexico for both the observed and projected periods are considered as the inputs for the AQUATOOL software. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Figure 5. Actual monthly water delivery Mexico 2005-2018 and projection with reductions by 2040. Simulations with current demands Once the distribution of agricultural water demand and projected inputs for the future scenario 2020-2040 were estimated, it was possible to carry out the simulations both in the control scenario and in the future. The 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 simulated period in AQUATOOL corresponds to 35 hydrological years from 2005 to 2040. For the order of priority of supply in AQUATOOL software, the highest priority has been given to urban and industrial demands (including ARCT) over agricultural demand. The results in simulations with AQUATOOL show that only agricultural demand DR-014 has 9 failures in the supply guarantee in scenarios 2005- 2020. Subsequently, this same demand, plus that of the ARCT aqueduct and two rural demands, present even more failures for the future period 2020-2040 with water reductions. These failures in agricultural supply, it can be thought that they were most likely satisfied by greater extraction of groundwater by users or some measure of irrigation adaptation. However, there is no public data on accurate control over groundwater extraction. For the 2020-2040 scenario, with only current water demands, there are 18 DR-014 failures generated by the estimated decreases in deliveries to Mexico through 2040. The ARCT aqueduct has 18 failures in the period 2020-2040, although despite this, the guarantees appear to be above 90 %. Rural demands UDR_Zona_VIII and Zona_IX a total of 12 failures in the period 2020-2040. Even with these estimated failures, the volumetric guarantee in these water demands remains above 97 % (Table 4). 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Conclusions Attention to the issue of water in Mexicali and Baja California (as it should be in all cities) is urgent and important. Although there have not yet been any cuts in water supplies in Mexicali, if it happens to date in Ensenada, B.C., where water supply from the Colorado River cannot be guaranteed. Failures in agricultural demand are difficult to verify as there is no detailed information on deliveries and agricultural users. What, if it is a reality, is the current nonconformity of farmers on a variety of issues in this regard, including water management. Adding a new water demand of between 5 and 20 Hm3 per year to the Mexicali system could lead to surface water system failures, as happens if demand is added in the control period. While new industrial demand fails in quantities less than 10% of what it would demand, it is proof that its supply may be limited at certain times. In addition, a demand of 20 Hm3 represents a significantly higher amount than other existing demands. Even a new initial demand for 5 Hm3 should be carefully analyzed. Although the company's installation that would require this new demand has now been suspended, it is important to consider that current water needs in Mexicali and B.C., may not be guaranteed soon. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 There is no complete source of data information required for this type of study. While you have to go to the relevant offices to get some data, many do not exist or are not available to anyone. The Colorado River basin in the Mexican part has a low availability of official data and scientific studies conducted in the region. Because of this, they have to make important assumptions and indirect estimates to be able to carry out this type of research. This results in a decrease in the certainty of the results, reducing them to being strictly indicative. Increasing the efficiency of the DR-014 irrigation system and reducing agricultural demand is the area of greatest opportunity to increase availability in the system. Despite possible reductions in water supplies to Mexico, as determined by Minute 323, if current demands are maintained, they could be supplied in the short term. The application of AQUATOOL in the water flow system in Mexicali and the results obtained, show the usefulness to develop a myriad of analyses of "what if...?", as in the case of adding the new industrial demand or assuming a modification of the quantities, etc. The current situation of conflict over water in Mexicali since 2016, shows the lack of communication and cooperation between users. Acknowledgments This work is carried out under the funding of the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) of Mexico for the scholarship awarded 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 for a doctorate abroad to the first author, which is also part of the doctoral thesis. References Adler, R. (2007). Restoring Colorado River ecosystems: A troubled sense of inmensity. Washington, DC, USA: Island Press. Andreu, J., Solera, A., Capilla, J., & Ferrer, J. (2007). Modelo SIMGES de simulación de la gestión de recursos hídricos, incluyendo utilización conjunta. Versión 3.00. Manual del Usuario. Valencia, España: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Carrillo-Guerrero, Y., Glenn, E., & Hinojosa-Huerta, O. (2013). Water budget for agricultural and aquatic ecosystems in the delta of the Colorado River, Mexico: Implications for obtaining water for the environment. Ecological Engineering, (59), 41-51. CEABC, Comisión Estatal del Agua de Baja California. (2017). Informe mensual diciembre 2017. Mexicali, México: Comisión Estatal del Agua de Baja California. CEABC, Comisión Estatal del Agua de Baja California. (2016). Programa hídrico del estado de Baja California, visión 2035 – Resumen ejecutivo. Mexicali, México: Comisión Estatal del Agua de Baja California. Christensen, N., Wood, A., Voisin, N., Lerrenmaier, D., & Palmer, R. (2004). The effects of climate change on the hydrology and water 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 resources of the Colorado river basin. Climatic Change, (62), 337- 363. CILA, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y los Estados Unidos de América. (2018). Entregas de agua a México del Río Colorado. Recovered from https://cila.sre.gob.mx/cilanorte/index.php/avisos/116- entregasagua-rc CILA, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y los Estados Unidos de América. (2017a). Acta 323. Aplicación de las medidas de cooperación y adopción de un plan binacional de contingencia ante la escasez de agua en la cuenca del río Colorado. Ciudad Juárez, México: Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y los Estados Unidos de América. CILA, Comisión Internacional de Límites y Aguas entre México y los Estados Unidos de América. (2017b). Las aguas subterráneas y la jurisdicción de la CILA. Recovered from http://www.cila.gob.mx/as/baasmxeu.pdf Cohen, M., & Henges-Jeck, C. (2001). Missing water, the uses and flows of water in the Colorado River Delta Region. Oakland, USA: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development Environment and Security. Conagua, Comisión Nacional del Agua. (2018). Estadísticas del Agua en México, edición 2018. Ciudad de México, México: Comisión Nacional del Agua. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Ficklin, D., Stewart, I., & Maurer, E. (2013). Climate change impacts on streamflow and subbasin-scale hydrology in the upper Colorado River Basin. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71297. Gautam, J., & Mascaro, G. (2018). Evaluation of coupled model intercomparison project phase 5 historical simulations in the Colorado River basin. International Journal of Climatology, (38), 3861-3877. Hinojosa-Herta, O., & Carrillo-Guerrero, Y. (2010). Las cuencas hidrográficas de México. La cuenca binacional del río Colorado. México, DF, México: Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático. Howes, D., Burt, C., & Feist, K. (2012). Basin-wide remote sensing of actual evapotranspiration and its influence on regional water resources planning. Irrigation Training and Research Center, 002. Recovered from www.itrc.org/papers/pdf/remotesensing.pdf IPH, Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica. (2008). Orden ARM/2656/2008, de 10 de septiembre, por la que se aprueba la Instrucción de Planificación Hidrológica (IPH). Madrid, España: BOE. Luecke, D., Pitt, J., Congdon, C., Glenn, E., Valdés-Casillas, C., & Briggs, M. (1999). A delta once more. Boulder, USA: Environmental Defense Fund. McKinney, D., Cai, X., Rosegrant, M., Ringler, C., & Scott, C. (1999). Modeling water resources management at the basin level: review and future directions. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 2022, Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Tecnología y ciencias del agua, ISSN 2007-2422, 13(1), 49-88. DOI: 10.24850/j-tyca-2022-01-02 Medellín-Azuara, J., Mendoza-Espinosa, L., Lund, J., Harou, J., & Howitt, R. (2009). Virtues of simple hydro-economic optimization: Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Environmental Management, (90), 3470-3478. Solera-Solera, A., Paredes-Arquiola, J., & Andreu-Álvarez, J. (2015). AQUATOOL+, Manual de usuario. Valencia, España: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. SPABC, Secretaría de Protección al Ambiente de Baja California. (2012). Programa Estatal de Acción ante el Cambio Climático de Baja California. Mexicali, México: Secretaría de Protección al Ambiente de Baja California. Udall, B., & Overpeck, J. (2017). The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resources Research, 3(53), 2404-2418. USBR, U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation. (2019a). Annual operating plan recipients. Recovered from https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g4000/24mo/index.html USBR, U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation. (2019b). Sequía en la cuenca del Río Colorado, perspectivas utilizando datos abiertos. Recovered from https://cidatest.er.usgs.gov/bluedragon/dev/es/ USBR, U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation. (2016). West-wide climate risk assessments: Hydroclimate projections. Denver, USA: U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation.