TRANSBOUNDARY WATER DISPUTES Transboundary water agreements should include a rebuttable presumption that negotiations over transboundary water disputes begin with regional committees organized at the ―lowest‖ appropriate hydrological level. This argument has two components. First, it requires regional committees to be organized by hydrologic units, such as watersheds. Second, it requires beginning dispute resolution with the ―lowest‖—or most local— hydrologic unit. For example, if the dispute is over a small border stream that feeds into Lake Michigan, negotiations would begin with a committee comprised of stakeholders, from both the United States and Canada, whose lives are impacted by the stream, as opposed to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, who are not as directly impacted. Two examples below illustrate both components of the argument. First, a comparison of two case studies, one between the United States and Canada, and one between the United States and Mexico, that demonstrate the advantage of approaching transboundary water disputes at the local level. Second, the experience of the United States and Canada in employing regional committees demonstrates the usefulness of such committees in resolving disputes. Together, these examples demonstrate that a rebuttable presumption that 110. See, infra pp. 30–32. 111. XXXXXX, supra note 101, at 11. 2010] WATER DISPUTES 19 negotiations over transboundary water disputes begin with regional committees organized at the ―lowest‖ appropriate hydrological level encourages long-term cooperation, ensures wide-spread public participation, and enables water-managers to use the best available hydrologic data to resolve their disputes. It is important to note, at the outset, that the case studies are useful examples, but the comparison has its flaws. Mexico is less economically developed than the United States and Canada, and its democracy is not as mature.112 In addition, the relationship between the United States and Canada is different from the relationship between United States and Mexico. As a result, it would not be possible to make a general conclusion that any one factor is responsible for the more successful outcome of one dispute, between the United States and Canada, than the other, between the United States and Mexico. However, the general conclusions of those analyzing each of the case studies highlight relevant differences in the approaches, which enhance the usefulness of the comparison. In addition, each dispute...
