In recent months, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) published two decisions that are a good representation of the silent debate that society is waging around the Right to Water.

Last April, the highest judicial authority protected a group of people and organizations against the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (Semarnat), the National Water Commission (Conagua) and the Organismo de Cuencas Centrales del Norte, forcing them to take measures to preserve the main aquifer of the lagoon area of ??the state of Coahuila.

The complaint dates back, at least, to 2021 when it was revealed that Conagua continued to grant exploitation permits to companies and residential developments, despite the depletion of this aquifer being proven.

It was also found that the agency was not doing enough to stop illegal exploitation of the resource.

In defense of aquifers

This year, the SCJN determined that the plaintiffs had the right to force Conagua to comply with an aquifer rescue program, as well as to stop being omissive in its supervision.

Among the obligations of respect and protection that Conagua has, the following stand out: “Abstain from any practice or activity that reduces, denies and/or restricts access to drinking water under equal conditions.” And this: “To prevent third parties from undermining in any way the enjoyment of the right to water, that is, by individuals, groups, companies or other entities, as well as those who act on their behalf.”

Another relevant case is a lawsuit that was carried out in the municipality of Ecatepec, in the State of Mexico, where the municipal government is accused of not providing water service and for this reason it was intended to remove the mayor.

The Supreme Court took up the case, although it clarified that it will not decide anything about the public servant, but rather will focus on determining whether the municipality is obliged to provide water to people who have not paid for the service and do not have a water contract.

The legal route when the other options are closed

How interesting! These are almost 300 people who have demanded through the courts that they be provided with water, but the municipality has defended itself by arguing that they do not have a contract, or a way to verify that they have paid for the service.

Beyond the political backlash that may be behind this case, reference is once again made to the ambiguity of the human right to water. Should the service be provided to those who do not pay? Are these people being given the opportunity to pay and therefore receive the service?

If someone pays your water bill, can you demand in the courts to have it 24 hours a day, with a quality supply? Is the State obliged to provide water, even in areas of water stress? Are you bound to the impossible?

On the other hand, how can an authority claim that it is complying with the supply of water to the population, if it can be demonstrated that it is not investing enough in works related to the service?

Little is charged and less is invested

A few weeks ago, the Center for Economic and Budgetary Research (CIEP) released a study on the collection of water rights, where it found that only 18.1% of the rights charged for the service are invested in related infrastructure.

In other words, of the more than 73,000 million pesos that were charged for water in state or municipal governments in 2021, only 13,238 million pesos of investment in water-related programs could be identified at this same level of government.

The CIEP considers that this disparity in investment may be due to the lack of transparency on the use of resources. This means, thinking very positively, that more is invested in water infrastructure than what is reported… although there is always the possibility that it is not spent, or that it is spent on other unrelated things…

With these figures, how could a lawsuit not proceed? To further complicate the situation, if the state charges wildly variable rates from one region to another, is it being responsible for guaranteeing supply?

huge disparities

The CIEP study says that Oaxaca charges an annual average of only 70 pesos per capita for the supply, while in Baja California the cost is 1,763 pesos per person.

It is understandable that certain regions of the country have more abundance, but the purification and distribution service does not have such disparate costs. How can there be so much difference?

We are faced with the crux of the operability and guarantee of the human right to water versus reality, and how our legal system and our institutions in charge of the distribution and operation of our water distribution systems will adapt.

All in the midst of a growing scarcity of water that is pressing at exponential levels.