Research El Paso Ciudad Juarez

EL PASO/ CIUDAD JUAREZ RESEARCH

Ronald L.K. KAM Complex Projects Border Studio 2015-16

BORDER STUDIO 2015-16 TU DELFT COMPLEX PROJECTS About Border Studio The border between the United States & Mexico is not a line but an enormous region crucial for both countries. It is one of the most discussed infrastructural border in the world, primary due to the social, economic, and political co-dependency between the United States & Mexico… the obscenely close juxtaposition of wealth & poverty, allows for an unprecedented exploitation between two neighbouring states.

The US-Mexico border comprises a de facto third nation where economic and social symbiosis exists in spite of the militarized security regime and political rhetoric. The border region is a paradox in that the regime that is

supposed to keep people apart acts as a magnet drawing them together. In the center of this paradox, is the dysfunctional twin city of El Paso and Juarez. Investigating specific aspects of El Paso/Juarez (the semi-abandoned “Chamizal” zone, its Maquiladora special economic zones, its damaged environmental hinterland), the studio will develop architectural, urban, ecological, economical, industrial, and political projects that address the simultaneous violence of the border and its amazing potential as a catalyst for any activity that takes place within its locale.

The focus of the research is on the water aspect of the American South. Home to many of the fastest growing cities, such as San Diego, Mexicali, El Paso, major agriculture regions and industrial centres, all of which demand increasing volumes of water. Seeing for a different perpective, water connects, it trespasses any border and does not belong to anybody. Its fluidity does not regard ownership like land does. As a result the definition of demarcation between public and private interests gets

blurred when dealing with water issues. Watermanagement implies collaboration. It produces a strong sense of shared values and interest in the ‘common’.

Water could be regarded as the product of bilateral, eco-political agreements between the US and Mexico, as the aqueous destiny of the two nations, and their border cities and regions, is acknowledged. It has the potential to define and bring cultures together.

Research Focus

Site Located at the periphery of El Paso, and Ciudad Juarez, the site is where cultiple the multiple forces shapoing the international border are present, including the Rio Grande, the international diversion dam, informal and formal Mexican settlements, 16 lanes of US highways,

industrial land, University of Texas in El Paso.

The currently dysfunctional site allos an urban and architectural proposition intervention to turn the problematic border conditions into opportunity.

CONTENTS General Border Research

01.

04.

06.

08.

Border Studies

U.S. Mexico Border

El Paso- Ciudad Juarez

21.

23.

24.

Border Issues - Urban Sprawl - Housing - Public Space - Water

25.

Streets

Water

Public Space

Informal Housing

Field Trip

26.

27.

28.

32.

Border Voices

Highlights

City typology -Street Grid -Street Block

Plot typology - Building Plot - Housing typology

Field Trip

Water: A Further inquiry

38.

52.

54

55

Radicalizing the local: 30km of border conflict

Status quo

Conclusion

References

General Border Research U.S. Mexico border El Paso and Ciudad Juarez

BORDER STUDIES

The past, present and the future of borders ‘The rise and fall, the construction and deconstruction of various types of boundaries is the very story of human civilization’. (Paasi 1998) said Oommen, an Indian Professor of social science. Many scholars claimed at the turn of the 21st century that this story is about to end as borders will disappear and humanity will live in a global village, a contemporary and de-territorized hyperspace created by the processes of globalization where the notions of distance is overthrown. History has proven them wrong. There are more international borders in the world today than ever there were before. The world is far from being a cultural and geographical homogeneity. Not only national borders are not disappearing, most of them are even strengthened.

Globalization did had its effect, contemporary borders appear to be more differentiated and also the meaning of borders is changing. The traditional function of borders, to create and to contain, is in some cases replaced by a bridging function, to enable contact. Borderlands are increasingly sites where new liberties, new movements, new mobilities, new identities, new citizenships and new forms of capital, labor and consumption are created.

(Thomas M. Wilson, Hastings Donnan 2012) Border studies have become significant as scholars and policy-makers alike have recognized that most things that are important to the changing conditions of national and international political economy take place in borderlands.

2

The study of border is not something new, it has a fertile past and considering that during

the past few decades it has evolved into a multidisciplinary field, the future is also appealing. It is therefore important to summarize in typical terms the features of first generation and current border studies. As identified

by Thomas M. Wilson and Hastings Donnan in their essay “Borders and border studies’ (Thomas M. Wilson, Hastings Donnan 2012), the emphasis on earlier studies were (1) On the Mexico-US border as main focus or chief comparator; (2) On the relation between nation and state; (3) On borders as geographical and political ‘”peripheries”; and (4) On engaging the key issues of interest to the disciplines concerned.

They also noted that the emphasis has shifted in the past few decades, towards a new crossdiscipline adoption of a focus on (1) Culture and, as a corollary, (2) An emphasis on ethnographic methods, involving a shift in epistemology, with (3) Borders seen as “process” as much as “product’; (4) States regarded as incomplete, fragmented and embedded through everyday practice; (5) border(ing) understood as within as well as at the edges; (6) and “margins’ as the new “centers”.

These border theories are useful “state of the art� tools for the conceptualization, analysis and inquiry for the numerous urban questions that arise from complex national borders. However borders conditions often concern realms of politics, social science, economic and even ecological concerns on both sides of the borders, making it difficult to unfold the highly complex urban questions.

Also given the long length of national borders, a first question immediately arises: where should we start?

1

Border Towns and Cities

Border towns and cities provide a telling insight into the geographies of wealth and power. They also provide an excellent lens into how states seek to promote their agenda how their advances are received and appropriated. They also function as social laboratories in which international protocols are given practical effect. (Thomas M. Wilson, Hastings Donnan 2012) For the purpose of the graduation thesis I choose to focus on El Paso and Ciudad Juarez as the site of inquiry to unravel how border theories and urban questions are spatially manifested in the urban space.

2

3 1.

Hong Kong- Shenzhen (2015) 2.

Geneva (Swiss-French) (2015) 3.

El Paso- Ciudad Juarez (U.S.- Mexico) (2015)

3

US- MEXICO BORDER

Background The Mexico–United States border is an international boundary running from Tijuana, Baja California, and Imperial Beach, California, in the west to Matamoros, Tamaulipas, and Brownsville, Texas, in the east. The border, separating Mexico and the United States from each other, traverses a variety of terrains, ranging from major urban areas to uninhabitable deserts. It is the most frequently crossed international boundary in the world, with approximately 230,000 (2014 and down by 25,000 from 2013) legal crossings being made annually.

The total length of the continental border is 1,954 miles (3,145 km). From the Gulf of Mexico, it follows the course of the Rio Grande

(Río Bravo del Norte) to the border crossing at El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; westward from that binational conurbation it crosses vast tracts of the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert, the Colorado River Delta, westward to the binational conurbation of San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, before reaching the Pacific Ocean.

Geography

The region is characterized by deserts, rugged hills, abundant sunshine, and two major rivers—the Colorado and the Rio Grande (Río Bravo del Norte)—which provide life-giving waters to the largely arid but fertile lands along the rivers in both countries.

CALIFORNIA ARIZONA

1 BAJA CALIFORNIA

2

SONORA

NEW MEXICO

4

TEXAS

CHIHUAHUA

COAHUILA NUEVO LEON

4

3

Border Towns The US-Mexico border was the product of war that led to the cession of a vast expanse of Mexican territory in 1848. This land seizure forced many ordinary Mexicans southwards, thereby reconfiguring settlements in proximity to the rerefined boundary.

The most striking feature of this border is the existence of pairs of towns running from the Atlantic to Pacific Coasts. There is a total of 14 pairings, yielding a total of 28 towns/ cities in all. Some of the pairs are large cities such as San Diego and Tijuana in the far west, which are estimated to have populations of 1.3 million and 1.5 million respectively. Equally, El Paso has a population of 614,000 , while Ciudad Juarez has mushroomed to an estimated 1.5 million.

In the intermediate category would be Brownsville (est. 139,800) and Matamoros (est. 422,700) on the eastern seaboard.

Finally on th smaller side would be Nogaloes in the US (20,800) and Nogales in Mexico (190,000).

The marked inequalities betweeen the U.S. and Mexico turns on the complex relationships between the 14 pairs. A Mexican City like Ciudad Juarez has witnessed periods of boom in the 20th Century. The period of Prohibition in the US conferred a windfall on Juarez and Tijuana alike, but the boom ended when there is a return to normality in the U.S.. Many Mexican border towns have a tradition of not merely providing springboards for legal and illegal immigration to the US, but also of sustaining a large population of commuters who work in the US and sleep in Mexico.

1

2

3

1.

San Diego- Tijuana (2015) 2.

Nogales (2015) 3.

Brownsville- Matamoros (2015) 4.

El Paso- Ciudad Juarez

5

EL PASO - CIUDAD JUAREZ

Background El Paso- Juarez is a binational metropolita area with over 4.9 million people, making it the largest metropolitan area on the U.S.Mexico border.

History

Early Days (1600-1960) Spanish explorer Don Juan de Oñate was the first European explorer to arrive at the Rio Grande near modern Juárez and El Paso in 1598, celebrating Thanksgiving Mass there on April 30, 1598 (several decades before the Pilgrims’ Thanksgiving). El Paso del Norte (the present-day Ciudad Juárez), was founded on the south bank of the Río Bravo del Norte (Rio Grande) in 1659 by Spanish conquistadors. The Mission Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe became its first major settlement. Being a grassland then, agriculture flourished and vineyards and fruits constituted the bulk of the regional production. The Spanish Crown and the local authorities of El Paso del Norte had made several land concessions to bring agricultural production to the northern bank of the river in present day El Paso. However, the Apaches dissuaded settlement and development across the river. The water provided a natural defense against them.

6

El Paso became the southernmost locality of the Provincia de Nuevo Mexico (modern New Mexico). It remained largest city in New Mexico until its north side was ceded to the US in 1850. It communicated with Santa Fe and Mexico City by the Royal Road. American spies, traders and fur trappers visited the area since 1804 and some intermarried with

the area’s Hispanic elite.

In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo effectively made the settlements on the north bank of the river a formal American settlement, separate from Old El Paso del Norte on the Mexican side. The present Texas-New Mexico boundary placing El Paso on the Texas side was drawn in the Compromise of 1850.

The communities on both sides of the border continued to function, in large part, as a single community. The United States Senate fixed a boundary between Texas and New Mexico at the thirty-second parallel, thus largely ignoring history and topography. A military post called “The Post opposite El Paso” (meaning opposite El Paso del Norte, across the Rio Grande) was established in 1854. Further west, a settlement on Coons’ Rancho called Franklin became the nucleus of the future El Paso, Texas. A year later pioneer Anson Mills completed his plan of the town, calling it El Paso and the town was incorporated in 1873.

During the French intervention in Mexico (1862–1867), El Paso del Norte served as a temporary stop for republican forces of rebel leader Benito Juárez until he established his government-in-exile in Chihuahua. In 1888, El Paso del Norte was renamed in honor of Juárez.

In the later 19th century the population in the region began to grow rapidly. The area attracted new comers ranging from businessmen and priests, to gun fighters and prostitutes. Mining and other industries gradually developed in the area

NAFTA and Macquiladora (1960-2008) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was signed between US, Canada and Mexico has a tremendous effect particular on the Mexican side. The maquiladora phenomenon, whereby US industries are encouraged to relocate some of their operations to the Mexican side of the border, began as early as 1960s, received a tremendous boost from NAFTA. The deal is that foreign companies are permitted to import equipment and raw materials duty-free for use in assembly plants that produce goods for the non-Mexican market. The theory is that Mexican state will derive some revenue from this enclave activity, US companies will have guranteed access to cheap labour, Mexican border towns will prosper and there will be less of an impulse for ordinary Mexicans to seek work across the border. Although the macquiladoras have created new jobs, the wages are typically low

and the number of openings has not kept up with the constant stream of work-seekers. In short, the initiative has done little to stem the flow of would-be immigrants to the US, and may even had the opposite effect.

Violence and current (2008-Present) In 2010, Ciudad Juarez was known as ‘The Murder Capital of the world’ as there was an average of 8.5 killing everyday. During the period of time from 2009-2012, many men, women and children were killed indiscriminately as they were helplessly caught in drug cartel violence. Nearly 11,000 people were killed from 2007 to 2013. While there is a sense of ‘back to normal’ in the recent two years as homicide rate dropped since 2012 back to a rate close to that of 2007, the violent history still left a psychological effect on the residents and still affect the way they live, work and play.

1

1.

A panoramic view of El Paso- Juarez from the North (2015)

7

Urban Sprawl Area of developed area (1990- 2008) The area of urban development in Ciudad Juarez grew exponentially. Urban sprawl is significant in the way that the urban area grew at a faster rate than the population growth. For example from 1960 to 2005, population increased 5 times in Ciudad Juarez from 276,995 to 1,313,338 while urban area increased 16 times from 1,894 hectares to 31,246 hectares.

The reason for the growth is primarily due to the proliferation of macquiladoras in Ciudad Juarez, which attracts a large amount of immigrants looking for job opportunities. Many of these immigrants cannot afford the house in the market or are not eligible for social housing and therefore opted to construct informal houses on the outskirts of the city.

Population and urban growth Population and urban growth in Ciudad Juarez * in Ciudad Juarez * Year Year

1940 1940 1950 1950 1960 1960 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2005 2005

Population Population

48,881 48,881 131,308 131,308 276,995 276,995 424,135 424,135 567,365 567,365 798,499 798,499 1,217,818 1,217,818 1,313,338 1,313,338

Area(ha) Area(ha)

563 563 800 800 1,894 1,894 5,608 5,608 9,395 9,395 14,049 14,049 21,572 21,572 31,246 31,246

Population Population Density (p/ha) Density (p/ha) 87 87 164 164 146 146 75 75 60 60 57 57 56 56 42 42

Sources: *: La estructura urbana y las diferencias espaciales en el tiempo de traslado del viaje altrabajo en ciudad juárez recimiento urbano en ciudad juarez **: “U.S. Decennial Census”. Census.gov. Retrieved January 14, 2012. TX State Historical Association

8

Population growth in Ciudad Population growth in Ciudad Juarez (1900-2013) * Juarez (1900-2013) * Year Year

1900 1900 1910 1910 1921 1921 1930 1930 1940 1940 1950 1950 1960 1960 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 1995 1995 2000 2000 2005 2005 2013 2013

Population Growth rate Population Growth rate 8,218 8,218 10,621 10,621 19,457 19,457 39,669 39,669 48,881 48,881 122,566 122,566 262,119 262,119 407,370 407,370 544,496 544,496 789,522 789,522 955,770 955,770 1,187,275 1,187,275 1,301,452 1,301,452 1,508,004 1,508,004

+29.2% +29.2% +83.2% +83.2% +103.9% +103.9% +23.2% +23.2% +150.7% +150.7% +113.9% +113.9% +55.4% +55.4% +33.7% +33.7% +45% +45% +21.1% +21.1% +24.2% +24.2% +9.6% +9.6% +15.9% +15.9%

Population growth in El Paso Population growth in El Paso (1900-2013) ** (1900-2013) **

Year Year

Population Growth rate Population Growth rate

1900 1900 1910 1910 1921 1921 1930 1930 1940 1940 1950 1950 1960 1960 1970 1970 1980 1980 1990 1990 2000 2000 2010 2010 2014(est) 2014(est)

15,906 15,906 39,279 39,279 77,560 77,560 102,421 102,421 96,810 96,810 130,485 130,485 276,687 276,687 339,615 339,615 425,259 425,259 515,342 515,342 563,662 563,662 649,121 649,121 679,036 679,036

+146.90% +146.90% +97.50% +97.50% +32.10% +32.10% −5.5% −5.5% +34.80% +34.80% +112.00% +112.00% +22.70% +22.70% +25.20% +25.20% +21.20% +21.20% +9.40% +9.40% +15.20% +15.20% +4.60% +4.60%

Area of urban development (1990-2008) * 1990

1995

2005

2000

2008

Changes in landuse (1990-2008) * 1990-1995

1995-2000

2000-2005

2005-2008

9

Housing Issues Informal Housing and Shanty Towns In both Mexico and United states, colonias are unregulated settlements that began to emerge with the advent of informal housing.

Colonias are considered semi-rural subdivisions of substandard housing lacking basic physical infrastructure, potable water, sanitary sewage, and adequate roads. Colonias are unincorporated, unregulated, substandard settlements that are burdened by the lack of environmental protection.

Colonia communities do not have access to traditional homeownership financing methods and therefore consist of ramshackle housing units built incrementally with found material on expanses of undeveloped land. In the US, colonias have a predominant Latino population where 85 percent of those Latinos under the age of 18 are United States citizens.

The U.S. has viewed border communities as a place of lawlessness, poverty, backwardness, and ethnic difference. Despite the economic development, liberalization and intensification of trade, and strategic geographic location, the southern U.S. border is one of the poorest regions in the nation. Most cases have shown that these communities formed when unscrupulous land owners inappropriately subdivided rural lands, offered plots through

1

10

2

a contract for deed, and made false promises that utilities would be installed.

The majority of these communities have no water infrastructures and lack wastewater or sewage services Where sewer systems do exist there are no treatment plants in the area and untreated wastewater is dumped into arroyos and creeks that flow into the Rio Grande or the Gulf of Mexico.

Features 1. Typically no formal street grid 2. Lacking some or all basic public services sewage network, elecricity, safe running water, rain water drainage, garbage removal, access to public transport, insect and disease control services.

3. Lacking basic servies including policing, mail delivery, medical services and fire fighting 4. High density 5. Built with recycled scapr materials Problems 1. Fire risks 2, Hygiene problems 3. Environmental pollution and soil erosion 4. Safety and social security 5. Vulnerable to droughts and floods

1.

An informal house in Tijuana (2015) 2.

Informal settlements in Tijuana (2015)

Distribution of colonias in El Paso and Cudad Juarez, Courtesy of Sarah Thiel

11

Dysfunctional Public Spaces El Paso: A culture of exclusion The city is typically designed as a car-oriented city and pedestrian friendly streets are almost absent except in the city center area which was planned in the 1900s. Blocks are typically encircled with roads and highways and results in a low walkability. While many parks are planned in different neighborhoods, they are often disconnected from the residential neighborhoods and are only accessible by vehicles, making them very unpopular public spaces.

However, there are plans plans to rectify these problems. In the “Connecting El Paso” vision plan presented jointly by the City of El Paso and Dover, Kohl & Partners town planning, proposes to restore lost urban fabric and concentrate on a human-scaled smart growth strategy. 1 It writes “Reactivating pedestrian life is the least costly, most reliable, healthy, and even most pleasant, of transportation options. This requires networks of safe, comfortable, interesting and walkable streets that are connected over long distances by public transit options that are both efficient and dignified. A variety of transit options should include trolleys, bus rapid transit systems, city buses and bicycle routes in addition to the private automobile system. Successful pedestrian environments must be planned in conjunction with transit planning – each depends on complete, compact, mixeduse communities.”

1 See more at http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/ could_el_paso_become_a_model_o.html

12

An example of how this vision will be implemented spatially is evident in the planned transformation of how an intersection at Five Points district can evolve from a haphazard, car-dominated site into a walkable transit oriented development.

Ciudad Juarez: Vibrant Streets, empty parks While there are certainly active streets in central Juarez, most public spaces around residential neighborhoods are left unused and abandoned due to the fear of violence. Typically parents doe not allow children to go to the parks as they are often taken by criminal groups. 2 “Public spaces are ugly, the green areas are not green, sidewalks are not sidewalks. Parks are wastelands, some have a few rides for children to play, but are not aesthetically designed. Juarez is designed for automobiles. There are only streets, we have no museums or art galleries.”

- Carolina Rosas Heimpel, artist and researcher at Universidad Autonoma de Ciudad Juarez

In short, not only are the public spaces and parks poorly designed and not attractive to use, they fail as functional public space as they are insecure and not safe to be used.

2 See more at http://www.arteyciudad.com/revista/index. php/num1/article/view/87

1

2

3

4 1.

Exsiting condition at The Five points intersection (Image courtesy of DKP town planning, extracted from http:// planelpaso.org/)

5

2.

Proposedc ondition at The Five points intersection, with street oriented buildings and enhanced walkability 3.

A park at central Juarez with active streetlife 4.

An empty park located in a typical residential neighborhood in Juarez 5.

Typical American Parks isolated by roads

13

Water Issues Drought Fore more than 100 years, residents and officials in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez has wretled with how to conserve the region’s limited water supply. In 1905, the Rio Grande project was authorized to ensure that all water from Rio Grande is stored for irrigation. This resulted in the construction of Elephant Butte Dam and reservoir in New Mexico for the delivery of water to farms and cities in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. However, water availability in the Rio Grande is becoming more and more insecure in recent years. For example in 2012, runoff to Elephant Butte Reservoir was at an 80% below historical average.

Furthermore, both El Paso and Ciudad Juarez depends heavily on the Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Bolson aquifers as fresh water source.

By early 1990s, the Hueco Bolson aquifer was losing 3 feet annually and has subsequently fallen 200 feet over last century. In 1991, El Paso city council passed an ordinance on mandatory year-round restriction on certain water usages and a prohibition on wasting water.

Flooding Despite the aridity of the region, precipitation often come in abundant quantity with in short period of time. For example in 2006, El Paso issued a flash flood warning on 5th August 2006 and parts of El Paso received up to 15 inches of rain, whereas the city typically receives less than 10 inches of rain for an entire year. In the 2006 flood, both El Paso and Ciudad Juarez experienced several extreme precipitation and it led to widespread flood damage. Impacts in Juarez were more severe 14

than El Paso, with over 5000 houses damaged or destroyed, 20,000 residents left homeless, extensive loss of built environment infrastructures. These adds up to a monetary damage of USD$600 million, which is 2 times the city’s annual budget. The most debilitating flood losses were experienced by the marginal residents of slums located within the city’s rugged western arroyos. In the same flood, El Paso suffered a damage of 1500 homes and some flood protection infrastructure damaged, equating a monetary loss of USD$200 million. The severity of disaster in El Paso was in an order much less than Juarez when considering the economic disparity of the two cities.

1

1.

Drought along the Rio Grande

(Image courtesy of Michigan Technical University, extracted from http://www.mtu.edu/news/stories/2015/may/working-together-build-drought-resiliency.html)

2

El Paso & Ciudad Juarez Hueco Bolson

Climate Graph of El Paso

40°C

60mm 50mm

30°C

40mm

20°C

30mm

10°C

20mm

3

Mesilla Bolson

Low

High

10mm 0

Dec

Nov

Oct

Sep

Aug

Jul

Jun

May

Apr

Feb

Jan

-10°C

Mar

0°C

Precipitation

4

2.

Depletion of Elephant Butte Resevoir

(Image courtesy of NASA, extracted from hhttp://earthobservatory.nasa. gov/IOTD/view.php?id=81714)

3.

Location of Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Bolson Acquifers

(Image courtesy of EPWU, extracted from hhttp://www.epwu.org/water/ water_resources.html)

4.

Climate Graph of El Paso, Annual rainfall is 246mm (Data source: U.S. Climate data)

5

5.

Ciudad Juarez under flood,

(Image courtesy of Juarez Noticias, extracted from http://www. juareznoticias.com/se-inunda-el-aeropuerto-de-chihuahua-alertan-a-lapoblacion/)

15

International Water distribution Rio Grande has been a shred water resource between the US and Mexico and had been the source of many conflicts and controversies.

To resolve these binational conflicts, several water treaties were signed between the two nations.

Border and Water Treaties: 1. Treaty of Guadalupe of 1848

This treaty fixed the boundary between El Paso and Ciudad Juarez and also the Gulf of Mexico. Temporary commissions were set-up as joint missions to survey and demarcate the international boundary in accordance with the treaties. The treaty also fixated Rio Grande as the international boundary. As a result, settlements sprung up along the boundary river and adjoining lands began to be developed for agriculture. At that time there was no regulation regarding the extraction of water on both sides.

2. 1889 Border Convention

Under this convention the two governments created the International Boundary Commission (which later became the International Boundary and Water Commission) and it was charged with the application of the 1884 Border Convention which concerns all questions created as a result of the changing location of the national boundary when rivers changed their course

3. 1906 Boundary water convention This convention provided for the distribution between US and Mexico above fort Quitnam regarding the water running 16

through El Paso- Juarez Valley. Under this convention, the US is to deliever to Mexico 60,000 acre feet for use in Juarez Valley.

In case of extraordinary drought or serious accident to irrigation system in US, the amount of water delivered to Mexico is diminished in same proportion as water delivered to the US irrigation system.

International Boundary and Water Commission Headquartered at El Paso and Ciudad Juarez, the IBWC consisit of a U.S. and Mexico body.

The rights and obligations administered by the organization include 1. Distribution between the two countries of the waters of the Rio Grande and of the Colorado River; 2. Regulation and conservation of the waters of the Rio Grande for their use by the two countries by joint construction, operation and maintenance of international storage dams and reservoirs and plants for generating hydroelectric energy at the dams; 3. Protection of lands along the river from floods by levee and floodway projects; solution of border sanitation and other border water quality problems; 4. Preservation of the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the international boundary; 5. Demarcation of the land boundary.

Problems 1. Diminishing flow in Rio Grande due to lower precipitation and higher evaporative loss due to higher temperatures resulted from climate change 2. Failure to supply water according to treaty provisions due to droughts (For example, U.S. deliveries to Mexico was curtailed due to drought, to an estimated 23,200 AF (39% of full allotment) in 2012 and 37,00 AF (6% of full allotment) in 2013.

3. The International Boundary Water Commission is only concerned with engineering aspects of water issues regarding water distribution. The organization is critized for being indifferent to social, environmental and political issues.

4. The U.S. Section of IBWC has been criticized for being secretive , beholden to special interests (eg. farming, industries) and indifferent to environmental problems.

Water distribution locations

Water distribution flow chart

RIO GRANDE (US)

RIO GRANDE (US)

AMERICAN DAM (US)

all remaining

AMERICAN CANAL (US)

ACEQUIA MADRE (MX)

TO EL PASO VALLEY TO JUAREZ VALLEY RIO GRANDE (US/MX)

max. 60,000 acre-feet p.a.

AMERICAN CANAL (US)

RIO GRANDE (US/MX)

FRANKLIN CANAL (US)

INTERNATIONAL DAM (US/MX)

FRANKLIN CANAL (US) INTERNATIONAL DAM (US/MX)

AMERICAN DAM (US)

ACEQUIA MADRE (MX) EL PASO VALLEY FARMLAND (US)

RIO GRANDE (US/MX)

JUAREZ VALLEY FARMLAND (MX)

GULF OF MEXICO

17

18

Border Fieldtrip Findings and documentation

19

Streets- El Paso

1

2

3

4

5 20

1.

Demonstrators at El Paso 2.

Dead Public space at a office building 3.

Downtown El Paso with heritage buildings 4.

A shopping street in El Paso leading to Paso del Norte Crossing 5.

International Bridge with cars waiting to cross the border from Mexico to USA

Streets- Ciudad Juarez

1

2

3

4

1.

Pedestrians waiting for bus 2.

A typical street in Central Juarez 3.

Street in central Juarez with a lot of abandoned houses 4.

A street at a hilly area with informal houses 5.

Typical street in Juarez with public buses in the background

5 21

Water

1

2

3

4

5 22

1.

Old riverbeds are converted to roads, making them always flooded in times of rainfall 2.

Rio Grande viewed from Mexican side, with factories and University of Texas El Paso in the background 3.

Pouring rain in El Paso 4.

Rio Grande and the International Diversion dam 5.

Border condition at the edge of Chamizal, note that Rio Grande is almost completely dry

Public spaces

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Abandoned public space in a residential neighborhood 2.

A skate park at Juarez close to Chamizal, very popular with young people 3.

A park at central Juarez with active streetlife 4.

A market in central Juarez, acting as active commercial public spaces 5. ‘El ekis� (the X) in Juarez, frequently holding large scale public events like fairs, festivals, concerts and is very popular for young people

23

Informal Housing and Streetlife

1

2

3

4

5 24

1.

A street in Anapra, an informal housing neighborhood in Juarez 2.

A street vendor recycling and selling used goods from El Paso 3.

The informal neighborhoods are served by these ‘pop-up’ stores 4.

A typical informal house in Juarez: built on/ next to steep slopes using recycled materials 5.

An informal housing neighborhood in Tijuana

Abandoned Houses

1

2

3

4

1.

Abandoned house in Juarez 2.

Abandoned shop in Juarez 3.

Empty Street with abandoned house 4.

Interior of abandoned house in Juarez

25

Border Voices

(extracted from conversation with the locals)

“ We live in the everyday, we don’t have much thought about the future. People in Juarez and Mexico tend to look at things every day and now.’

“It is crucial to understand Mexico as a multi-ethnic country. Juarez is a place where migrants from all different parts of Mexico, even Latin America come together. In this respect Mexicans is perhaps not so different from Americans as a people with different ethnicities and migrant origins.” “ I feel that Mexicans are more willing to go out and walk around the streets, live the streets and enjoy the streets. Americans tend to stay at home and not enjoy the street as much as we do.” “ Different people have different perceptions of the border. I know some people from the American side who would never come to Juarez and also vice versa. But for most of us the border isn’t so much a big deal apart from a crossing point. I see two cities as one”

“Juarez is a complex city. It is difficult to know the problems of the city given the immense complexity of the city. It grew and is still growing as a result of the global economy. However the city has an order, you just need to discover it” “You can understand Juarez as a city which underwent 3 very phases. Around the 50s starting as a Border town with close relation with El Paso. Then around the 80s as an Industrial town of maquilas and finally a period of crisis resulting from the crimes and violence. Nonetheless, Juarez always main tained a very close relationship with El Paso in terms of retail and commercial activities. People go to either sides to find what they can’t find in their own territory.

“To understand the condition of Juarez and El Paso, you first have to understand the situation as ‘silent occupancy’. This is evident in the fact that you would find it really easy to speak Spanish on the American side. Mexicans are regaining cultural and economic importance. I believe that a vast majority of the Hispanic people living on the American side would agree with me.”

Ileana Baca Garcia, 21 Student at UACJ

Professor/ Tutor, UACJ

“In the violent years, I was studying in UTEP. During that period of time I was always a bit afraid to cross the border back home. In those years both me and my brother asked my mum to leave Juarez and come to El Paso no matter legally or not. But she refused as this is home for her.”

“During those years, the streets, bars and restaurants are always empty. While most people were still trying to live normally, things are done differently those days. We still go party but only at friends home but not outside. We tried not to go out at night and we avoided certain areas.”

“Juarez is always my home and I think it has great potential. Though deep down I don’t know for sure if things can turn bad again.”

“I know quite a lot of people who moved to El Paso or other places but I also know quite a lot who came back in the end. Juarez is always lively and there is always a lot of things going on here. “

26

Pablo Berumen, 29 Musician in Juarez, former UTEP music student

FIeldtrip Highlights

1

2

3

4

5

1.

Presentation and discussion with architecture students at UACJ 2.

Field investigation with Francisco Otxoar, a architecture professor at UACJ 3.

FIeld investigation in El Paso 4.

Presentation and discussion with architecture students at Escuela Libre de Arquitectura in Tijuana 5.

Field investigation with architect in Tijuana

27

Street Grid El Paso

Juarez

50m 95m

Comparision of typical street grid in Ciudad Juarez and El Paso

28

50m

140m

Street Block Residential

1

3

2

1.

Two storey house with big yard 2.

A waste recycling station 3.

An informal house built on a hill

29

School

1

30

3

2

1.

Covered playground of a school 2.

Corner house with terrace garden 3.

A driveway providing access to houses

Park

1

3

2

1.

Park with vegetation 2.

Empty public space 3.

Park with basic playground furniture

31

Building Plots General rule of organization

Plot

Construct wall, start from corner

A collection of building plot typologies

32

Further expansion

Expansion leaving courtyard open

Organization around openspace

33

Housing Typologies 01 Elevated Houses Elevated House

Covered Balcony

Temporary Structure

Shaded space Built on topography

Concrete Support

02 Houses with terrace

Stepping back at each floor Built on topography

Terrace

03 Informal Houses

Built over sucessive additions

Zinc roof Recycled Materials

Balcony Garage

04 Shophouses

05 Adobe house Residential on 1/F & 2/F Terrace

Shop front

34

wood beams Adobe brick with plaster

06 Row Houses Identical fronts

07 Social housing

no outdoor space can not be expanded no shops

08 Transported house

house imported from USA supported by steel platform Shaded outdoor space

35

36

Water Issues A Further Inquiry

37

RADICALIZING THE LOCAL: 30KM OF BORDER CONFLICT

Background The international border between the U.S. and Mexico at El Paso and Ciudad Juarez is largely dominated by Rio Grande (or Rio Bravo in Spanish). A 30km linear cross-section along this national border compresses the most dramatic issues currently challenging our general conceptions of architecture and urbanism. A meandering 30km cross-section border cut begins 5 km north-west of Paso Del Norte international crossing (right next to the city centers of Ciudad Juarez and El Paso) at immediately above the point where the river becomes the international boundary and ends 25km south east at the city limit of both cities. Along the trajectory of this section, we find a series of collisions, critical junctures and conflicts between natural and artificial ecologies, top down development and bottom-up organization. +5.0km: American Diversion Dam and

Smelter Town +2.5km : International Diversion dam

0km: Paso Del Norte International Crossing

-2.5km: Chamizal -10km: Suburb/ Sprawl -25km: El Paso Valley and Valle de Juarez

38

LEGEND 30km cut

39

+5km / El Paso: American Diversion Dam and Smelter Town Just 5km northwest of central El Paso/ Ciudad Juarez immediately above the point where Rio Grande flows into the international boundary between Mexico and the U.S., the landscape is dominated by infrastructures and abandoned industrial sites. The most dominant feature is the American Diversion Dam, which diverts irrigation water to El Paso Valley on the American side via the American canal. It is operated by the American section of the International Boundary and Water Commission to regulate the delivery of water to Mexico in accordance with treaty provisions. This very structure results in the asymmetrical agricultural landscape in both El Paso Valley and Juarez Valley and will be explained in greater detail later. Here the Mexican side is left fairly untouched, with the only exception of two small brick factories and “La Casa de adobe”, a reconstruction of the traditional adobe house to commemorate the role of Juarez in Mexican independence. The American side tells a totally different story, it is a landscape vastly altered by industrial activities and human actions. It is the location of the currently abandoned Smeltertown.

Smeltertown was operated by American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) for the smelting and refinery of copper and

lead starting from 1887. It flourished by exploiting the cheap Mexican labor. (Kohout 2010) George T. Diaz wrote in his review Smetertown: Making and Remembering a Southwest Border Community “Smeltertown was more than a company town on the edge of El Paso; it was a place whose ethnic Mexican residents, “found ways to construct culturally vibrant and personally meaningful worlds in spite of, and perhaps even because of the heavy hand,” of ASARCO .”

In 1880 Mexican employees built houses at the west of the smelts just beside Rio Grande and this area grew into an industrial town with a population of 2500 in 1938. Smelter town became the center of an environmental controversy in 1970, where the City of El Paso filed a $1 million suit against ASARCO, and in early 1972 tests found that seventy two Smeltertown residents, including thirty five children who had to be hospitalized, were suffering from lead poisoning. In May 1975 the residents were forced to move, leaving only abandoned school and church buildings to mark the site of El Paso’s first major border industrial community. The story of smelter town is emblematic of the shift of production and pollution across the border from the American side to the Mexican side.

1.

Historical aerial view of ASARCO smelter

(Courtesy of the mine stories, from http://www.theirminesourstories.org/?cat=18)

40

1

2

2.

Settlements of Mexican workers in Smelter town (http://familiacortez. com/gallery/SmeltertownImages-Place-and-People/ oldsmelter)

41

+2.5km : International Diversion dam Just 5km northwest of central El Paso/ Ciudad At 2.5km from the city center of El Paso and Juarez one finds the location of the International Diversion dam. The dam finds its origin in the 1906 treaty and diverts water to Mexicans through Acequia Madre, an irrigation canal which runs through the urban settlements in Ciudad Juarez, to Valle de Juarez for the irrigation of crops. Here the Rio Grande water has become divided into three divisions by the American dam and the International Diversion dam: (A) American Canal which is always full of water; (B) Acequia Madre, which is seasonally wet or dry depending on the operation of the diversion dams; and (C) Rio Grande, which is almost always dry throughout the year. While the treaty provided an arguably “equitable distribution” of water between the states, this is done at the expense of the natural ecology of the river. The physical fact of an always wet American canal, a seasonally wet Acequia Madre and an always dry Rio Grande is emblematic of the asymmetry between the nations and over-consumption of natural resources.

Looking at the urbanism at this locality will also be equally revealing. The Mexican side of the border is typified by both formal and informal residential settlements. It is a very bottom-up urbanism with the absence

of a clear master plan. The banks of the river is left as simple asphalt, soil and vegetation and one can easily walk into the waters of Rio Grande without encountering any border control personnel. The American side of the border is dominated by multiple “lines of defense”, the components are as follows in spatial sequence from Rio Grande, (1) Border Fence next to Rio Grande, with light posts directing light towards the Mexican side at night to deter illegal crossings, (2) The American canal, (3) Industrial Zone, (4) Highway with eight lanes, (5) Industrial Zone, (6) 3 tracks of railway, and (7) Highway with eight lanes.

It is clear that the planning authorities perceive and conceptualize the border so differently. For the Mexican authority the border is nothing more than a physical boundary so the natural typology of the city is allowed to extend to the very edge of the national border.

For the American authority the border is conceptualized as a peripheral ‘void’ condition which should be isolated. Therefore a spatial ‘militization’ of urban space is achieved through by construction of multiple lines of transport, water and security infrastructures to maximize isolation.

1.

International Diversion dam 2.

Informal houses built on the hill close to the International diversion dam

42

1

2

43

0km : Paso Del Norte International Crossing At the very center of both El Paso and Ciudad Juarez the most dominant feature is the border crossing called Paso Del Norte Port of entry. Here Rio Grande becomes an engineered, straightened river covered with cement as a result of the resolution of the Chamizal dispute. The extremely wide river bed is contradicted with its usual absence of water. The river is flanked over with many border crossing infrastructures, including two unidirectional international bridges for vehicles, two unidirectional bridges for trains as well as customs and security buildings on both sides of the border.

However, the border crossing is not the most revealing site at this locality. At 500m to the north-west of the international bridge one could locate two very different industrial structures. In El Paso one could find El Paso Water Treatment Plant, which is operated by the El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU). The EPWU also operates other water facilities including waste water purification and desalination of ground water. This is part of a plan to develop better water resilience as the both surface water supply from Rio Grande and ground water aquifers are depleting while the population is expected to increase.

The water utilities are directly contrasted by the maquiladoras on the Mexican side. The maquiladora phenomenon is resulted from the tax-free effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFDA), where US industries are encouraged to relocate some of their operations to the Mexican side of the border.

The deal is that foreign companies are permitted to import equipment and raw material duty-free for use in assembly plants that produce goods for the non-Mexican market.

(McCarthy 2011). However, American maquiladoras have been accused of exploiting the weak environmental controls on the Mexican side for their own profit and at the expense of the transnational collective goods.

The stark contrast of the water treatment plant and the maquiladoras located at either side is a reflection of the asymmetry of the economy between the cities: the Mexican side is much more dependent and vulnerable to global economy swings while the American side is much more resilient.

1.

El Paso Water treatment Plant

(Courtesy of theEl Paso Museum of history, from http:// digie.org/media/3511)

2.

Interior of a macquila (Courtesy of Chihuahuanoticias, from http://chihua-

44

1

2

huanoticias.com/?p=72731)

45

-2.5km: Chamizal At this point of Rio Grande one can find the Chamizal National Memorial Park adjacent to the man-made water channel. This area was considered disputed land until late 1960s.

Before the cementation and re-routing of the river course the demarcation of national boundary was designated the center point of the river. A seasonal change in river course is resulted from the constantly moving river, generating a constantly moving border.

During these moments of transition creates a ‘third space’ known as Cordova Island1 , a kind of no man’s island of silt that sat between both countries. The natural third space was emblematic to the urban and cultural hybridization of border cities and citizens.

Notions of hybridization have been extensively studied and discussed to address the merging urbanism manifested at the border.

In Borderlands/ La Frontera: The New Mestiza Gloria Anzaldúa develops a new mestizo 1 In 1899, a channel was dug by both countries across the heel of the horseshoe bend of Rio Grande at the disputed Chamizal for flood control purpose. This moved a 385-acre tract of land to the U.S. side of the river, but as man-made alterations do not change the boundary, this tract of land remained Mexican territory. This tract of land came to be known as Cordova Island, a Mexican land inside U.S. territory. Thus, there was little or no control by the local authorities. See more at “CORDOVA ISLAND,” Handbook of Texas Online (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/rrc04), accessed December 09, 2015. Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association.

theory of the hybrid. She conceptualized that the seemingly conflicted identities within the borderlands result in “a third element which is greater than the sum of its severed parts.”

(Anzaldúa 1987) The Chamizal is illustrative of the ‘hybrid space’ to a certain extent.

It stood in the 1800s as a dynamic interaction between the natural and the man-made, The movement of the river made it possible for U.S. and Mexican residents to find themselves equally living on one another’s territory. While this kind of fluid movement created conflicted, it also created a consolidated space for both. However, politicians saw this as a problem rather than an opportunity.

The resolution of the ‘problem’ resulted in the 1963 Chamizal convention which transferred 2.5km2 of territory from the south to the north bank by artificially re-routing the river and channelizing it with cement to prevent any future movement. Although a memorial park was built on the American side with a sister park built in Juarez, the result remains as a binary product characterized by their vast emptiness and expansiveness of its manicured lawns. It recalls no memory of its own history. The Chamizal manifest itself as a tabula-rasa attempt to erase any hybridity: the messy is out and the clean is in. Also, it once again shows how natural forces of actions succumbs to powerful human intervention.

1.

Map altered to highlight Cordova island (Courtesy of Chamizal National Memorial)

2.

Aerial view of Chamizal and cordova island

46

1

2

(Courtesy of radiodiaries , from http://i2.wp.com/www. radiodiaries.org/wp-content/ uploads/Cordova-Island-Aeri-

al-2.jpg?resize=1000%2C804)

47

-10km: Suburb/ Sprawl At this point we reach the suburb of both El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. In El Paso this area is known as the Ysteta neighborhood.

It is an area dominated by typical American houses one would find in any suburbs in the U.S. These suburbs are mini-master planned communities inspired by Ebenezer Howards’ garden city. The communities are functionally zoned with schools and parks carefully placed next to residential houses. It is a planning model based on exclusion.

and directly contradict the city’s usual heterogeneous and organic metropolitan condition.

Being formerly an agricultural area, small patches of farmland are still cultivated but are increasingly susceptible to the encroaching forces of housing and urban development.

At this locality Rio Grande acts like a mirror, showing the physically same typologies on both sides while the kind of life, community that is generated is completely different.

What is intriguing is that the exact same typology of mini-master planned, gated communities of the U.S. are imported and adapted in its ‘Mexican version’ across the border.

The houses are miniaturized replicas of the typical suburban Texan tract homes, however paradoxically as “social housing”. These thousands of tiny tract houses are scattered around the periphery of Juarez especially in the south east. However, these residential areas do not function as a functional neighborhoods as their American counterparts.

While they sort to copy the American typology, the community and commercial amenities such as shopping mall, recreation spaces and schools are absent in these social housing estates. These houses collectively generate a vast landscape of homogeneity and division 1.

A similar housing neighborhood in TIjuana

(Courtesy of Anthony Marchetti, Sprawl in Mexicol)

2.

Kern Place neighborhood in El Paso(Courtesy

48

1

2

of Homeelpaso , from http:// homeelpaso.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/07/KernPlace4-e1406230249117.jpg)

49

-25km: El Paso Valley and Valle de Juarez And then, as one reaches the very edge of both cities, one arrives at an area where both sides of the border is dominated by a vast agricultural landscape. However the area of the agricultural land in El Paso Valley is significantly larger than the Mexican side. The asymmetry in water resources in the American canal and Acequia Madre is finally spatially manifested in the agricultural landscape. Apart from the asymmetry of water resources, American farmers are also benefitted from the better water management and more advanced agricultural machinery and technology.

However, both sides of the border faces the same challenge: drought. Analysis according to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Rio Grande could lose a third of its water in the next decade. Both U.S. farmers are receiving less water with the supply period delayed and shortened. On the American side farmers are increasingly using a combination of treated water from city sewage and salty ground water. The American authorities are working hard in search of alternative water supply. For example it is building a 400-acre rainwater basin for the collection of storm water and a plan to build an extra $82 million plant to recycle sewage into 10 million gallons a day of drinkable water in 2017.

On the Mexican side farmers are dependent on underground reserves. While American water management and utilities are highly centralized, the Mexican water utilities are largely de-centralized. A study by the Autonoma University of Juarez (UACJ) shows that there is a lack of consistent water management on the Mexican side and that attention is often centered in short term problems.

(Mendoza 2006) However as the underground aquifer runs across both cities, the depleting water reserve will be a challenge to both sides, despite that the U.S. is slightly better equipped.

1.

A cotton farm at Ciudad Juarez (Courtesy of mexicoenfotos, from http://www. mexicoenfotos.com/mx/

MX12182434359907.jpg)

50

1

2

2.

Franklin Canal in El Paso(Courtesy of El Paso Naturally , from http:// elpasonaturally.blogspot.

nl/2015_09_01_archive.html)

51

Status Quo: A water inquiry Depletion of ground water The Hueco Bolson is a thick pocket of sediments derived from nearby mountains that extends from New Mexico, through Texas, and into Mexico in the El Paso and Ciudad Juarez area. Over time, these sediments filled with water and became the Hueco Bolson aquifer: an oasis of plentiful water in the northern part of the Chihuahuan Desert. El Paso and Ciudad Juarez have relied on the Hueco Bolson aquifer as a primary source of drinking water for several decades. Because of the desert climate and the local geology, the aquifer is not easily replenished, and recharge is low. Low recharge and high pumping rates have caused large water-level declines and large decreases in fresh-water volumes in the aquifer. With current trend, some ground water models predict that El Paso will pump out the last of its fresh water by 2025 while some models predict that this will happen at around 2040. There will still be saline water available in the aquifers but desalination will tremendously increase the cost.

Alternative water source and conserving water El Paso has often been considered a leader in water management and conservation. The El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) employs primarily two strategies to cope with the increasing demand for water in the city: finding new sources and water conservation.

52

New Sources 1) Desalination El Paso city and the U.S. Department of Defense jointly built the world’s largest inland desalination plant- Bailey Hutchison Desali nation Plant in El Paso with a cost of $187

million. The plant has 30 desalinated wells and produces 27.5million gallons of water daily, turning the brackish (saline) water in Hueco Bolson into drinking water.

2) Intensive wastewater reclamation In 2010, El Paso used 2.1billion gallons of reclaimed water, around 5 percent of 37.4 billion gallons of total water used. The future plan is to increase the figure to 15% in the next 10 years by extending reclaimed water lines to schools, parks and Fort Bliss.

Water conservation 1) 1991 Water Ordinance The water ordinance was passed in 1991 and it stipulated rules to determine when and for how long are residents allowed to water the lawns. It also intensified penalties for water wasting activities: violations are chagred from $50 to $100 2) Dynamic water charges EPWU installed a water utility rate system to reward less use of water. A baseline is measured and set during the winter months when least water is generally used.

Then the residents are charged at different rates according to how much the water use exceeded the baseline.

3) Education Education centres are set-up to help residents pursue different water saving approaches, especially regarding landscaping.

Water saving devices and technologies The water board also encourage the reduction of water use by encouraging the use of highly efficient water devices like low flow toilets, flush free urinals and water efficient washing machines.

Water Figures/ Statistics

1. Usage

a. Mexico: ( Taylor J, 2008. “Water Crisis: Availability Of Water In Mexico�, Mexconnect. Retrieved 10 September 2011) i. Agriculture 77%

ii. Industry 10 % iii. Domestic 13%

b. Mexican Resident of arid north: 75 gallon per day

c. US Mexican: 50 gallon per day

d. El Paso: 225 gallon per day (1970s) >> 132 gallon per day (2013)

2. Supply (http://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/el-paso/texas/unitedstates/ustx0413)

a. Rainfall: 246mm

b. Snowfall: 177mm c. Aquifer

i. Mexico: supplies 70% of total needs

1) 101 of 653 aquifers severly exploited

ii. Depth of Aquifer 1) EP: 250-400 feet

2) Ciudad Juarez: 100-250 feet

3) Rio Grande: less than 70 feet (21 m)

d. Rio Grande:

i. 80% for agriculture

e. 5% of current water comes from desal El Paso: ~131,000 AF/yr Juarez

1. 2013

a. Underground acquirer Hueco Bolson ~67%

b. Underground acquirer Mesilla Bolson ~23%

c. Rio Grande ~10%

53

Conclusion The research and analysis show some of the many faceted aspects of the urban complexity of El Paso and CIudad Juarez. It is found that many issues and problems still require further research. Many of these problems are related to urbanism and architecture and solving these issue require spatial intervention.

The case of El Paso and Ciudad Juarez also shows that borderlands are not a remote periphery but rather, a center of a hybrid culture. There are frequent bidirectional flows of people, capital and materials between the twin cities and the cities are in a symbiotic relationship. This hybrid identity is best observed in the colonias in US and the dominance of hispanic culture in the American side. However, the case of Chamizal and Cordova island shows that such hybridity is not really understood, acknowledged and treasured by the national government and there is a tendency of hardening the border by engineering works which wipes out any traces of hybridity to be replaced with tabularasa, clean ‘memorial’ parks that paradoxically recalls no memories of the past. The Urban space is manifested in a form that could be representative of anything but the hybrid identity of the local people. How can urban interventions be bettered thought to show the true identity and hybridity of the place? Why does the border always have to be thought as a rigid line where the only reasonable form is building a wall? How could we imagine urban spaces and architecture that could provide the needed separation yet also become public places where people could enjoy?

54

Besides, the international border condition creates both opportunities and issues. The border itself resulted in the influx of immigrants and growth of businesses on both sides, leading to urban sprawl, housing shortage, informal housing, problems of urban sustainability, security issues and violence, just to name a few. However this research shows that the most pressing issue is water scarcity, given the diminishing flow of surface water in Rio Grande, an increasing population and demand for water and the depletion of underground aquifers in 10 years time at around 2035-2040. Without water, housing, industry, agriculture and education will not be possible. Both Ciudad Juarez and El Paso are at the crossroad of an uncertain future if they do not find new ways to find water for its future survival.

The Rio Grande is the the starting point of both cities, which is also the lifeline of the cities. Could urban and architectural intervention of water solve multiple problems at the same time and also bring back the inherent quality of water, a resource to be treasured, shared, and enjoyed regardless of nationality and differences by lives of all kinds?

References Theories on border studies Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Sanfrancisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987.

Diaz, Janine Mejia. “Frontera y Urbanismo: Spatial and Perceptual Constructs of the U.S.- Mexico Border.” ACSA Annual Meeting Proceedings, Fresh Air. Washington D.C.: Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, 2007.

635-642.

Kate A. Berry, Christopher P. Brown & Stephen Mumme, Vivienne Bennett & Lawrence A. Herzog. “Water Issues in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands.” Natural Reserouces Journal Fall 2000, Vol. 40, No.4, 2000: 755-988.

Kohout, Martin Donell. “SMELTERTOWN, TX,” Handbook of Texas Online. 6 15, 2010. https://tshaonline.org/ handbook/online/articles/hvsds (accessed 12 8, 2015).

Maganda, Carmen. “Border water culture in theory and practice: political behavior on the Mexico-U.S. border.”

Journal of Political Ecology 19, 2012: 81-93.

McCarthy, Robert J. “Executive Authority, Adaptive Treaty Interpretation, and the International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S.- Mexico.” 2011. http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1839903 (accessed 12 2015).

Mendoza, Jorge A. Salas Plata. “The Water Utilities of Ciudad Juarez (JMAS): Water Management and the Modality of Decentralization.” UCOWRCONFS. Southern Illinois University, 2006.

Paasi, David Newman and Anssi. “Fences and neighbors in the postmodern world: boundary narratives in political geography.” Progress ub Human Geography, 1998: 186-207.

Thomas M. Wilson, Hastings Donnan. A companion to Border Studies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell, 2012.

Wijhe, Alex van. Limology: Rethinking territory and society. 4 27, 2010. https://criticalgeography.wordpress. com/2010/04/27/on-borders-boundaries-and-borderlands-theoretical-limology/ (accessed 12 8, 2015).

International, 2003.

Moore, Charles W. Water and architecture. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1994.

Schittich, Christian. Designing circulation areas : stairs, ramps, lifts : routing, planning principles. Munich: Institut für Internationale Architektur-Dokumentation GmbH & Col. KG, 2013.

Suzukoi, Makoto. Modern Mexican architecture. Tokyo: Process Architecture, 1983.

US Mexico Border Fernando, Romero. Hyperborder : the contemporary U.S.-Mexico border and its future. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1971.

Herzog, Lawrence A. Changing boundaries in the Americas : new perspectives on the U.S.-Mexican, Central American, and South American borders. San Diego: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, UCSD, 1992.

Water Urbanism Meulder, Bruno de, and Kelly Shannon. 2013. Water urbanisms: East.

Tyoological Syudies Burri., René. Luis Barragán / René Burri. London: Phaidon, 2000.

Livingston, Morna. Steps to water : The ancient stepwells of India. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.

Mark. Luscombe-Whyte, Dominic Bradbury. Mexico : architecture, interiors, design. New York: Harper Design

55

Appendix 1 Conceptual Evaluation of Surface Water Storage in El Paso

57

Conceptual Evaluation of Surface Water Storage at El Paso (Note: Data and info extracted from EPWU report 2008, refer directly to the report for exact figures and methodology, the author does not claim ownership of the data and information quoted, all rights reserved by EPWU)

Introduction: Surface water and ground water usage El Paso Water Utilities (EPWU) has relied on both surface water and ground water for municipal water supply. Surface water is supplied from the Rio Grande. The Rio Grande flows that are diverted in the El Paso area are primarily derived for irrigation and municipal use in southern New Mexico and the El Paso area. Groundwater supplies are pumped from the Mesilla Bolson and the Hueco Bolson.

These ground water basins underlie portions of New Mexico, Texas and Chihuahua. Ground water occurs in unconsolidated fluvial, alluvial and lacustrine sediments The Rio Grande plays an important role in the recharge and discharge of both groundwater basins.

The location of EPWU wells in the Hueso Bolson and Mesilla Bolson and the location of the two EPWU surface water treatment plants are shown on Fig.4. Annual production from each of these sources is summarized in Figure 5

Figure 1. Rio Grande and Elephant Butte Reservoir

58

Figure 2. Location of EPWU Water Rights Properties

Figures 3. Location of Hueco Bolson, Mesilla Bolson and Los Mertos Bolson

Figure 4. Location of EPWU Wells and Surface Water Plants

Figures 5. History of EPWU Supplies from Groundwater (Hueco Bolson and Mesilla Bolson) and Surface Water (Rio Grande)

Conjunctive Use The use of surface water when available and the increase in groundwater pumping in years when surface water availability is limited is termed conjunctive use. The most significant limitation to the surface water supply is that droughts occur, and surface water flows are limited in some years. In these years, groundwater pumping is increased in order to meet demands.

Surface Water Treatment Capacity The surface water plants have a combined capacity of 307 AF/day. Under normal river flow conditions, the plants operate approximately seven months during the year (i.e. during the irrigation season). EPWU receives water from the Rio Grande project via its ownership of lands within the project area or through leases from water rights holders.

Currently, El Paso has water rights of about 65,000 AF/yr from the Rio Grande Project.

The surface water treatment capacity ranges from about 49,000AF (200 days of operation at 80% capacity) to about 83,000 AF/ yr (270 days of operation at 100% capacity).

One of the limitations of conjunctive use management in EL Paso County is the lack of local storage of surface water, or some other means to utilize the full treatment capacity of the plants when demand is less than available water. Local surface water storage facilities could extend and enhance the use of surface water. Such facilities could be used to temporarily store Rio Grande Project Water or capture monsoon storm runoff and put it to beneficial use. Discussions regarding the use of the Socorro Ponds as a surface water storage facility between El Paso Water Utilities and the El Paso County Water Improvement District No.1 are ongoing.

Future El Paso County Supplies The Regional Water Plan completed in 2008 included a study of alternative means of supplying nonagricultural water to El Paso County through the year 2060. Based on current capacities of wells and surface water plants, and the limitation that surface water is only available during the irrigation season, total available municipal supply in El Paso County is about 150,000 AF/yr. This includes about 5,000 AF/yr of reclaimed water supply that is available independent of drought conditions.

Figure 6 summarizes conjunctive use scenarios. Scenario 1 represents a full surface water allocation scenario. Scenario 6 represents a drought-of-record scenario. Scenarios 2 through5 represent intermediate surface water allocation scenarios that are between drought-of-record and full allocation conditions.

Table 1 summarizes the projected water supplies and demands according to the Far West Texas Regional Water Plan from 2010 through 2060. The plan calls for increasing diversions by 10,000 AF/yr in 2020, 15,000 AF/yr in 2030 and 20,000 AF/yr in 2040.

Increased storage of surface water could be used to meet part of this projected supply.

A report by EPWU in 2008 (Hutchison 2008) studied the conceptual possibility of three specific surface water storage options: 1) Surface storage of Rio Grande Water during high flow events for later use in the surface water plants 2) Store treated surface water in the Hueco Bolson 3) Treat, store and utilize local storm water runoff

Figures 6. Current Conjunctive Use Supplies in El Paso County

Table 1. Summary of Future El Paso County Water Supplies - Alternative 6, Far West Texas Regional Water Plan

61

Storage of excess Rio Grande Flows Analysis of potential storage of Rio Grande water to extend beneficial use begins with an analysis of flows in the Rio Grande at El Paso.

Data for Rio Grande flow at the El Paso gage is maintained by the International Boundary and Water Commission.

Annual Rio Grande Flows at El Paso

Based on actual records, annual Rio Grande flow at El Paso from 1938 to 2007 is 409,801 AF/yr.

Monthly Rio Grande Flows at El Paso

Monthly Rio Grande flows at El Paso for the period 1938 to 2007 are summarized in Table 2. The summary includes average monthly flow and the exceedance flows for 20%, 10% and 5% levels.

The analysis of monthly flow frequencies for the 70-year period (1938 to 2007) can be used to draw some conceptual conclusions regarding the amount and frequency of water that might be available for storage.

In March, for example, average flow is about 60,000 AF/mo, and the 20% exceedance flow is about 78,000AF/month. Therefore, there is a 20% chance that flow will exceed the average by 18,000 AF in March. If 10% of that “excess� water was available for storage, then 1,800 AF could be stored for later use. This type of conceptual analysis can be eextended for all months from March to September, and is summarized in Table 3.

62

Table 2. Rio Grande at El Paso Average Monthly Flow and Monthly Flow Exceedance Values

Table 3. “Excess” Monthly Flows (AF/mo) (20% Exceedance Flow minus Average Flows)

A- Average values listed in Table 2 B- 20% Exceedance value listed in Table 2 63

Conceptually, it could be reasonably argued that monthly flows in excess of monthly average is not an appropriate definition of “excess” since the average flow is less than the target flow due to drought conditions. Thus, the analysis could be altered to redefine “excess” as the difference in the 10% exceedance flow and the 20% exceedance flow. The analysis is summarized in Table 4.

The definition of “excess” flow cold also be the difference between the 5% exceedance flow and the 10% exceedance flow. This analysis is summarized in Table 5.

For estimation purpose, the annual yield of the scenarios presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6 is the amount of “excess” flow (assuming it could all be stotred), times the frequency (0.05, 0.10 or 0.20). Assuming that 25% of the excess flow is available (the middle column in Tables 4,5 and 6), the annual yield of each of these scenarios is summarized in Table 6. onceptually, not all the water could be stored,

especially extremely high flows, so the annual yields estimated in Table 6 are considered optimistic. A more detailed design analysis would need to be completed in order to properly estimate annual yields. This conceptual level analysis, however, does highlight the general size of any storage facility and the high-end of the expected of such a project. For example, if “excess flow” was defined as the difference between the 10% exceedance flow and the 20% exceedance flow, and 25% of that water was available for storage (the middle column in Table 4), a storage facility that could hold 5,400 AF of water could be reasonably expected to handle the excess flow in all months. However, the highest excess flow under this scenario occurs in September, when demands are starting to decrease. If such a flow was captured in Spetember, it would be reasonable to expect that the stored water would be held until the following spring, when demands increased again.

Table 4. “Excess” Monthly Flows (AF/mo) (10% Exceedance Flow Minus 20% Exceedance Flow)

A- 10% exceedance value listed in Table 2 B- 20% Exceedance value listed in Table 2 64

Table 5. “Excess” Monthly Flows (AF/mo) (5% Exceedance Flow Minus 10% Exceedance Flow)

A- 10% exceedance value listed in Table 2 B- 20% Exceedance value listed in Table 2 Table 6. Annual Yield defined as the 25% Available Excess Flows times probabilistic frequency (0.2, 0.1, 0.05)

A- 25% Available Excess Flow from Table 3 B- 25% Available Excess Flow from Table 4 C- 25% Available Excess Flow from Table 5 65

The length of time to hold the stored water would generally be a detailed analysis at the design phase of a project. However, conceptually, it can be seen that holding times more than one month would be advisable in most cases. For this conceptual analysis, data from the 14 highest flows (the 0.20 exceedance level) were examined in the context of the flow the following month. Table 7 summarizes the analysis.

Note that in the early part of the irrigation season (April, May and June), flows generally

increase in the subsequent month during high flow events. This suggests that opportunities to use stored water wuthin a few weeks to a few months would be limited, and it would be expected that stored water would need to be held for as much as possibly a year.

Conceptually, storage facilities that would hold about 4,000 AF would be sufficient to capture “excess flows�, and storage would be held for several months. This would result in annual yields of less than 1,500 AF/yr.

Table 7. Flow Increases and Decreases in Subsequent Month of 14 Highest Flows (1938 to 2007)

66

67

Storage of Local Storm water The other potential source of surface water that could be stored is local storm runoff. A study by URS and EPWU has subdivided El Paso into five watershed areas: west, northeast, central, east and lower valley. The locations of the watersheds are shown in figure 34.

Based on current EPWU well locations and the interface between fresh ground water and brackish ground water, the northeast area is potentially promising to treat and store local stormwater. Wells on the west side of El Paso are located northwest of the defined watershed area, and groundwater flow is generally to the south. Therefore, storage of storm water in the subsurface would not benefit EPWU wells. There are few wells in the central area and high degree of urbanization in the central area makes locating and constructing storage facilities difficult. Ground water in the east area is generally brakish and is therefore a poor candidate to store stormwater and capture it through wells.

URS delineated 50 individual watersheds in the northeast area, and combined them into three larger areas: Northeast Ponding, Range Dam, and Ft. Bliss Sump. These three areas and their acreage are shown in Figure 8.

After the storm events of 2006 in El Paso, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) contracted with Mapping Alliance Partnership of Albuquerque to evaluate flood frequencies in the El Paso area. Part of the analysis was a compilation of precipitation data from the precipitation gages at the El Paso Airport, La Tuna and Ysleta. Data analy-

68

sis was most complete at the El Paso Airport gage due to the quality of the record. Based on this analysis, it was estimated that the 24hour rainfall at the El Paso Airport gage with 0.2, 0.1 and 0.04 return probabilities was 1.68 in, 1.95 in and 2.26 in, respectively.

Figure 7. Location of El Paso Watershed areas

Figure 8. Northeast Watershed Areas

69

Unfortunately, precipitation gages in El Paso are limited. In particular, precipitation data at higher elevations are lacking. Because much of the watershed area shown in Figure 35 is located in the Franklin Mountains, using El Paso Airport precipitation data exclusively to estimate precipitation from a 24-hour storm will result in an underestimation of precipitation. Based on other regional analyses, it is possible that at higher elevation, 24-hour rainfall could be as much as twice that recorded at the El Paso Airport.

With these limitations in mind, Table 8 summarizes the total “rain crop” for the listed 24hour storm events. This estimated “rain crop” is simply the amount of rainfall multiplied by the watershed area. The rainfall amounts are multiplied by 1.0, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75 and 2.0 to develop the potential range associated with the rainfall at higher elevations.

Rainfall will either evaporate, infiltrate or runoff. In urbanized areas, runoff will be greater than in undeveloped areas. In heavy storm events, runoff (even in undeveloped areas) will be higher than in less intense precipitation events. Due to a lack of rainfall and flow data in the El Paso area, it is difficult to estimate how much of the total “rain crop” would result in runoff. Furthermore, it is difficult to estimate how much of this runoff would be available for capture and storage for later beneficial use.

For estimation purpose, the annual yield of these scenarios presented in Table 9, 10, and 11 are summarizerd assuming 75% availability, 50% availability , and 25% availability, respectively. Annual yield is estimated by multiplying the rain crop by the availability factor and multiplying the product by the return frequency (0.04, 0.10 or 0.20)

70

Table 8. Estimated “Rain Crop” of Listed 24-hour Storms in the Northeast Area All values in AF

71

Table 9. Estimated Annual Stormwater Yields for the Northeast Area Assuming 75% Availability

72

Table 10. Estimated Annual Stormwater Yields for the Northeast Area Assuming 50% Availability

73

Table 11. Estimated Annual Stormwater Yields for the Northeast Area Assuming 25% Availability

74

References Boyle Engineering Corp., Parsons Engineering Science Inc. “El Paso- Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project: Evaluation of Socorro Ponds Storage and Development of Environmental Enhancements Options- Rio Bosque etlands Park.” 2000.

Hutchison, William R. Conceptual Evaluation of Surface Water Storage in. El Paso: El Paso Watewr Utilities, 2008.

75

76

Appendix 2 Potential Storage Site

77

Potential Storage Site International Diversion Dam The International diversion dam is a structure which diverts water to Mexico according to treaty provisions. On the Mexican side residential settlements are constructed to the periphery of Rio Grande, the International boundary. For the American side, however, there are abandoned warehouses, factories and unused land disconnected from the urban fabric by highways. This presents an opportunity to be turned into a water storage facility that functions simultaneously as a park. One of its main advantages is that water stored at this site could be released for a va-

riety of uses (i.e. Irrigation diversion, or municipal diversion at either of EPWU’s surface water treatment plants).

The total area of the site is approximately 90 acres and the area that could be conceptually converted into raw water collection and storage ponds make up 71 acres of this area.

Conceptually with a depth of 17ft (5.2m), the potential total storage capacity of the facility is 1065 AF. While this is less than the desired storage capacity of 4000 AF, the construction of the water storage facility at this locality provides additional benefits as a public space to be enjoyed by citizens of both nations.

International Diversion Dam

Figure 9. Location of Potential Site for the Storage of Excess Rio Grande Flow

78

American Canal

UTEP

Rio Grande

Potential Site for Water Storage

International Diversion Dam

Ciudad Juarez Figure 27. Detailed Location of Potential Site for Water Storage at International Diversion Dam

79

Border Reservoir Park Enviconmental Enhancement and Storage A reservoir park can be constructed by creating a second dike within the pond’s footprint folowwing the outside dike. Between these two dikes a natural looking channel, wetland area, and riparian habitat would be created.

The elevation of the area within this enclosed portion of the pond would be varied to provide variation in the types of habitat. The conceptual design for the channel provides the capacity to deliver the pond’s influent from American Canal. This channel is described as the “natural channel in Figure 10. The threefoot-deep channel would be lined with minimal gravel in the bottom to control erosion while allowing vegetation to grow within its banks.

The purpose of the depth control dike is to create wetlands on the edges of the pond site. Once this wetland area has sufficient water to maintain the shallow habitat area, the continuing water flow is directed to the main storage area of the pond. The main storage area of the pond provides water to be delivered to the two surface water treatment plants. Only water in the storage area would

be pumped to the treatment plant. The pomping of the storage pond would not effect the depth of water in the wetland area. Except for evapotranspiration and seepage losses in the wetland system, all of the influent to the wetland area of the storage pond would reach the storage area.

The border wetland park results in approximately 15 acres of wetland. THe target wetland system would be a willow-cottonwoodcattail complex. The dominant species in this complex would be coyote willow, Goodding willow, Rio Grande cottonwood and southern cattail.

The wetland component of the storage pond would be lined with up to three feet of water retaining, highly organic soil. This liner would retain water and limit the infiltration losses.

An additional benefit would be to retain water in the soil profile when water is not available to divert into the storage pond thus prolonging the vegetation’s life until water can be diverted again.

Figure 10.Typical Profile of Water Storage

80

Storage

Shallows

Figure 11. Conceptual Wetland Park and Water Storage at International Diversion Dam

81

CREDITS Research Report Ronald Long Kwan Kam © 2016, June Delft University of Technology c/o Faculty of Architecture Delft Complex Projects 2015-16 Border Studio El Paso, TX, USA & Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico Project Partner (Water Masterplan): Pieter van Hall Faculty Members: prof ir Kees KAAN (Professor & Chair of Complex Projects) Stefan DE KONING (Lecturer) Contacts Delft University of Technology c/o Faculty of Architecture Julianalaan 134, 2628 BL Delft, Netherlands