July 12, 2008 (LPAC)-The following is the official report back by leaders of the Pro-PLHINO Committee, of their July 4 meeting, held at the Mexico City offices of the National Water Commission (Conagua), with Conagua Deputy Director for Development of Hydroagricultural Infrastructure, Sergio Soto Priante.

While leading the fight to get the Calderon government to carry out the feasibility studies required for this great tri-state project, the Pro-PLHINO Committee is not sitting idly by, waiting for government action. Plans are underway for the Committee's technical advisor, engineer Manuel Frias, to physically travel the entire route projected for the project, from the Santiago river in the state of Nayarit, through the state of Sinoloa, to the Yaqui river in Sonora, in order to carry out a direct inspection of the terrain and problems involved.

From beginning to end, the meeting was tense, primarily because of Soto Priante's hostility, which was seconded by the Conagua representative in Sonora, Roberto Salmon. Participating along with Soto Priante and Salmon were two other Conagua bureaucrats. At our invitation, a representative of the advisory team of the Federal Congress' Committee for Rural Development attended, as did engineer Manuel Frias Alcaraz, technical advisor to the Pro-PLHINO Committee and the nation's leading expert on the PLHINO project today.

The attitude of both Soto Priante and of Salmon was one of total disregard and contempt for the efforts of the Pro-PLHINO Committee. This was made clear when we pointed out to them that nearly six months after we had requested this discussion with them, the Committee has yet to be informed of how the funds allocated by the Congress for PLHINO feasibility studies have been used. To which Salmon responded: Who are you that we need to inform you? Furthermore, he claimed he didn't even know of the existence of our committee.

Soto Priante lost his cool when we told him that Senator Castelo Parada had reported to the Sonora press that an agreement had been struck by Conagua with the Mexican Institute of Water Technology (IMTA) to carry out the PLHINO studies, and we asked Soto Priante directly if this was true. He refused to respond, saying that he wanted to know our motive for asking the question, and then denying the existence of such an agreement. We asked him if this meant that Senator Castelo was lying, and he freaked at this and told us that if we wanted that information, we should go to the Federal Institute for Access of Information.

Most of the meeting was taken up by Soto Prieto and the two other Conagua bureaucrats offering an obscure defense of their water management policy, in which everything is defined by administration of existing resources. That is, there is no policy for generating water, and worse, under this criteria, they consider any expansion of land under cultivation extremely expensive. The way in which they oppose the PLHINO, while saying they agree with it, is that they treat any investment in water management made in Sinaloa or Nayarit as projects favoring the PLHINO, while they reject the PLHINO concept of transferring water from north to south to assure an expansion of land under cultivation in the region. In reality, they are against the PLHINO, which would allow Sonora to expand land under cultivation by 400,000 hectares.

Defending this criteria, they use the pretext of administrative norms to justify their taking the funds away from the local Conagua office in Sonora. According to them, there is no food crisis, much less any urgency in addressing this emergency with a policy for expanding acreage under cultivation. Thus, in effect, they declared themselves incompetent to hold a discussion on these issues, and therefore we proposed that the Conagua itself inform President Calderon that he must meet with us.

Finally, when we once again questioned Soto Priante on how the funds which Congress had allocated for PLHINO feasibility studies been used, he admitted that they had an agreement with the IMTA, and that they plan to use those funds for a series of studies on local projects, prinicipally in Sinaloa, which are not conceptually linked to the PLHINO.

In reality, this constitutes a diversion of funds from their Congressionally-mandated use. Their intention is clearly to take the funds allocated for the PLHINO studies, and use them for local projects which are not related to the PLHINO concept of dramatically increasing regional water resources, to thereby be able to expand the region's agricultural capabilities. Conagua director Jose Luis Luege Tamargo should be called before the Chamber of Deputies's Rural Development Committee, to give a detailed accounting of what he is doing with the allocated funds.

Conagua also wants the Pro-PLHINO Committee to provide them with technical information, in an attempt to remove the Committee from itself direcly participating in the discussion over the kind of studies that are most appropriate for the region, and for the country. Soto Priante arrogantly told us: "We will decide what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and with what resources."

Manuel Frias, after giving a technical presentation on the project, which the Conagua advisors were in no position to question, issued the following challenge to them: Let us resolve this in the following way. Let Conagua present its project and the Pro-PLHINO Committee can present its. On this basis, the proper choice can be made, based on the best interests of the region and the country.

We feel we should make this challenge stick, and get the Congress involved, especially the Rural Development Committee, which is prepared--after the resolution they brought before the entire Congress--to haul Conagua director Luege Tamargo before them to give a detailed accounting of his use of the PLHINO funds.

Special note should be taken of Soto Priante's insistence that instead of pushing the PLHINO, we (who are from Sonora) should be demanding that the state of Sinaloa provide more water to southern Sonora, from its Fuerte river. We consider this to be a hook designed to entrap us in a conflict with Sinaloa over insufficient water resources, which Conagua would then use to sabotage the regional movement for the PLHINO.

In sum, it can be concluded that Conagua declared itself formally incompetent to discuss public policies that require a project of the PLHINO's dimensions. They themselves admitted that this must be discussed with President Calderon, and we think it would be good to take advantage of a possible visit by the President to Sonora, so that Sonora's Governor and the Pro-PLHINO Committee could present him with our proposal.

Pro-PLHINO Committee of the 21st Century

Antonio Valdez Villanueva, Adalberto Rosas Lopez, Alberto

Vizcarra Osuna